Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, first, I commend the work of Senator Landrieu, who always brings passion and commitment to so many issues. Of course, those that relate to our State of Louisiana are always at the top of the list. We are grateful for that and for her speaking out on the people of Haiti. We are honored to be able to hear that tonight. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, today I submitted a resolution designating May 24, 2010, as ``Prescription Drug Disposal Awareness Day.'' May 24 would be Timothy Michael Strain's birthday. Timmy, as his family called him, died last year when he was given two painkillers that had not been prescribed for him. Through their grief, his parents Bernie and Beverly Strain have taken up the cause of safe drug disposal to make sure what happened to their son does not happen to others. In recent years, recreational prescription drug use has grown at an alarming rate. In 2008, approximately 15,200,000 Americans 12 years of age and older reported having taken a prescription drug that had not been prescribed to them for recreational purposes in the previous year. Our children are finding these drugs in our medicine cabinets and the results can be deadly. Apart from the tragic impact on our children, the lack of a safe place to dispose of prescription drugs is harming the environment and infiltrating our water sources. Without a place to turn in prescription drugs people are washing them down the drain where they end up in our rivers and in our drinking water. We must work to find a safe way to dispose of prescription drugs and help make sure that what happened to Timmy Strain does not happen to any other child. I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Kohl for joining me in introducing this resolution and I encourage all my colleagues to work to ensure safe methods of prescription drug disposal are available in their States.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, today I submitted a resolution designating May 24, 2010, as ``Prescription Drug Disposal Awareness Day.'' May 24 would be Timothy Michael Strain's birthday. Timmy, as his family called him, died last year when he was given two painkillers that had not been prescribed for him. Through their grief, his parents Bernie and Beverly Strain have taken up the cause of safe drug disposal to make sure what happened to their son does not happen to others. In recent years, recreational prescription drug use has grown at an alarming rate. In 2008, approximately 15,200,000 Americans 12 years of age and older reported having taken a prescription drug that had not been prescribed to them for recreational purposes in the previous year. Our children are finding these drugs in our medicine cabinets and the results can be deadly. Apart from the tragic impact on our children, the lack of a safe place to dispose of prescription drugs is harming the environment and infiltrating our water sources. Without a place to turn in prescription drugs people are washing them down the drain where they end up in our rivers and in our drinking water. We must work to find a safe way to dispose of prescription drugs and help make sure that what happened to Timmy Strain does not happen to any other child. I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Kohl for joining me in introducing this resolution and I encourage all my colleagues to work to ensure safe methods of prescription drug disposal are available in their States.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I commend the work of Senator Dodd on this legislation. We have more work to do. I rise to speak to an amendment I have filed, amendment No. 3891, the homeowners' relief and stabilization amendment. The reason I rise is to speak about a topic we have all talked about and we have taken action about over the last couple years. We have had some progress made, but unfortunately not enough progress has been made. I speak tonight about foreclosures. Foreclosures in America are still a huge problem for the American people. RealityTrac, one of the entities that keeps records on foreclosures and has been a leading source for this information, tells us that the numbers of U.S. residential properties receiving at least one foreclosure filing jumped 21 percent in 2009 to a record of 2.82 million housing units. Foreclosure activity has increased sharply in March of 2010. The number of homes in some stage of the foreclosure process rose from the previous quarter. Given the significant Federal response to the foreclosure crisis, it is disheartening--I think that is an understatement--that foreclosure filings in March of 2010 were up nearly 8 percent from March of 2009, the highest monthly total since RealtyTrac began reporting the numbers in January of 2005. So we have a ways to go on this very difficult challenge that our Nation has faced. I commend the administration for using the so-called TARP funds, the Trouble Asset Relief Program funds, for initiatives to help homeowners, which I think indicates that the Federal Government is concerned about assisting those who have lost their jobs or have seen their home values plummet as a result of Wall Street recklessness. You could add a few more words to ``recklessness,'' but in the interest of time, I will not. Despite the actions of the Congress over the last several years, despite the actions of the prior administration and this administration especially, despite all that effort, according to the Congressional Oversight Panel of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund, as of February of 2010, 6 million borrowers were more than 60 days delinquent on mortgages and only 168,708 homeowners had received final 5-year loan modifications. We have a long way to go and we have to implement, in my judgment, new and different and more effective strategies to deal with foreclosures. More must be done to stem this tide of foreclosures that has resulted not only from widespread subprime mortgages but also from increasing unemployment, which has devastated communities and neighborhoods across America. This amendment--which I thank both colleagues from New York, Senators Gillibrand and Schumer, for cosponsoring--would also use TARP dollars to help unemployed homeowners. It is very simple: $3 billion would go into a HUD fund to establish a temporary emergency funding relief program based on a very successful program run in Pennsylvania since 1983. It has helped tens of thousands of homeowners in Pennsylvania. This may be the most successful mortgage foreclosure relief program in the country, at least that I am aware of. Some may want to debate that. But I think in Pennsylvania we have a good track record. We need something akin to that, something very similar to that on a national scale. This program and this idea are designed to respond to high unemployment situations where homeowners are temporarily unable to afford their monthly mortgage payment due to at least three conditions: unemployment, of course; underemployment is another situation; thirdly, a medical condition could also prevent someone from making their mortgage payment every month. Subprime mortgage loans and predatory lending sparked a wave of foreclosures, as many borrowers defaulted on loans that they were sold using predatory practices, that they could never afford in the first place to make the payments for. Now the country finds itself in the midst of a second wave--a second wave of foreclosures, where prime borrowers struggle to make their monthly payments after a job loss or unsuccessful attempts at refinancing or modifications. Despite all of the work that has been done here over the last couple of years, despite all of the work done by the administration, we still find borrowers, homeowners, who, because of a job loss or another adverse circumstance, cannot make their monthly payments. We need direct help for them. We do not need something around the margins; we need direct help for them. The amendment provides for loans to homeowners only after determining the borrower has a reasonable prospect of being able to resume making full mortgage payments, and we will consider their ability to repay in establishing loan terms, conditions, or rates. In addition to the individual homeowner problem--someone who has lost their job or has some circumstance that prevents them from making their payments--in addition to the individual, we have full neighborhoods across the country that continue to suffer from housing price declines, lost property tax revenues, abandoned properties, and, of course, blight. This amendment would also direct $1 billion of TARP funds to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program created by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 to provide grants to State and local governments and eligible entities to purchase and redevelop foreclosed and abandoned properties with the goal of stabilizing communities. So this is a neighborhood problem in addition to being a problem with individual homeowners. The language from this amendment was included in H.R. 4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 which passed the House of Representatives late last year. In conclusion, I wish to reemphasize the need for this type of an amendment because we still, unfortunately, have not tackled the foreclosure problem in America. In fact, it is a foreclosure crisis which will prevent us from having an economy that is in full recovery. We did the right thing by making sure the TARP dollars were able to sustain what happened in the strategy to help our financial companies around the United States of America, especially those that were in real trouble in 2008 and 2009. We did the right thing on the recovery bill. We did the right thing on the HIRE Act a couple of months ago. We have taken a lot of steps to rescue and stabilize our economy. We are growing now. We have some growth. We have some employment growth. But unless we tackle completely the foreclosure problem with a very direct, focused effort, we are not going to fully recover and we are not going to have the kind of economic growth we should. So I would urge my colleagues to join Senator Schumer, Senator Gillibrand, me, and others in voting for and seeking the passage of this amendment, No. 3791, the homeowners relief and neighborhood stabilization amendment. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak about the visit this week by Afghan President Karzai and many of his ministers, as well as the policy that is unfolding all these many months in Afghanistan. I rise in the midst of a debate we are having in the Senate on financial reform and continuing efforts and strategies to be put in place to create jobs. Even in the midst of all those domestic concerns that are economic in nature--and we are still very concerned about and working on the problems of those who are out of work--we need, in that context, to also be concerned about what is happening in Afghanistan. So I wish to discuss President Karzai's visit and, as I mentioned, the visit, as well, by other Afghan government officials. The other reason I rise in connection with that topic is to talk about the continuing threat our troops face from improvised explosive devices known by the acronym IEDs. They continue to pose a threat to our troops, and we have to continue to be concerned about the nature of that threat. In a broader sense, when it comes to this policy, we have to get this right. We have to make sure our government is continually focused on getting this strategy right in Afghanistan, as it relates to security, governance, and development--all aspects of the strategy, working with our coalition partners in doing that. First and foremost, on the question of IEDs, the Los Angeles Times reported last week that three-fifths of the 602 combat-related deaths of U.S. troops in Afghanistan were due to roadside bombs, the so-called IEDs, improvised explosive devices. The primary ingredient in these bombs is ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer that can also be used as an explosive. We know this from our recent history. We also know we have some domestic history to consider. Timothy McVeigh used a 4,800-pound ammonium nitrate bomb to attack the Alfred Murrah building in Oklahoma City in April of 1995. The Afghan Government has recognized this problem--the use of ammonium nitrate--and has begun working with coalition troops to crack down on the use of ammonium nitrate. It is no longer legal in Afghanistan to use ammonium nitrate in farming, and Afghan farmers receive training on how to use other types of fertilizer. During yesterday's press conference President Karzai had with President Obama, he discussed the use of ammonium nitrate and, in particular, its impact on U.S. troops. I was glad he did that. I am glad President Obama has been focused on this issue as well. I had a chance yesterday, in a lunch with a small group of Senators, to ask President Karzai directly about this issue. So we talked about it yesterday at lunch as well. Despite this ban in Afghanistan, ammonium nitrate manages to make its way to Afghanistan, reportedly from Pakistan. The Los Angeles Times reported that transport routes are lined with corrupt Pakistani police officers--according to the Los Angeles Times--and border officials who accept bribes to allow this smuggling to occur. This smuggling is a lucrative enterprise. One Pakistani businessman reported making almost $950 a month smuggling ammonium nitrate for use in Afghanistan. This is a country where the monthly average income is $216 a month. I urge the Pakistani Government to track and regulate the transport of this dangerous material. The government appears to recognize that ammonium nitrate could also pose a threat to Pakistan's national security as extremists across the country step up their activities there as well. As in Afghanistan, it is important for the authorities in Pakistan to first show the political will to address this problem, and to put in place proper legal mechanisms to diminish its use across the border in Afghanistan. Ammonium nitrate's use in IEDs is the main killer of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. We must do all we can--all we can--to limit its use. I understand that if ammonium nitrate did not come from Pakistan, smugglers would identify new sources from other bordering countries. While this may be the case, it appears as though the primary source today is Pakistan. In this case, Pakistan is where we should focus our attention. So let's get at the supply of ammonium nitrate. Let's make it much harder for terrorists to kill U.S. troops. Let me move next to the overall policy in Afghanistan. I was honored to be one of seven or eight Senators to have lunch yesterday with President Karzai. During his time in Washington, we were all pleased--I think both sides of the aisle in the Senate were pleased--that President Karzai reiterated his commitments to improving governance and reducing corruption. They are commitments, but I think the people of Pennsylvania and the people across America need to see results from those commitments. I also hope President Karzai will restate his support for NATO efforts to win back the country from the Taliban and drive the insurgents to the negotiating table. In a meeting with Afghan Government ministers on Wednesday, five or six other Senators and I emphasized the importance of women's rights in Afghanistan. Afghan women play a key role in the decisionmaking process. Any peace process or agreement that does not respect and uphold the rights of half of the population--the women--of Afghanistan will fail to achieve long-term goals for security and stability. In February, Senator Boxer and I cohosted a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee hearing on the future of Afghan women and girls. At that hearing, Melanne Verveer, the U.S. Ambassador at Large for Women's Issues, testified about the challenges Afghan women and girls face. She said: Perhaps the greatest remaining impediment to women's full civic participation is violence against women and girls, which remains endemic in Afghan society. Crimes go unpunished because of anemic rule of law and weak institutions of justice. Approximately 80 percent of crimes and disputes are settled through traditional justice mechanisms. So said Melanne Verveer, who knows of what she speaks. This is a continuing problem. It is not just a moral problem. This is a problem long term for us as well because if the women of Afghanistan--women and girls--are not treated with respect, are not accorded the kind of rights and being given the benefit of a system of justice that will protect them, then our whole strategy in Afghanistan is undermined. We cannot just win this on the battlefield. This is not just about the military. There are two other aspects that are so important to this strategy: governance and development. Of course, when you are talking about governance, you are talking about a system of justice. If half the population is the continued target of violence, and if half the population is not accorded basic rights and given the benefit of a functioning system of justice, our strategy in Afghanistan will fail. This is a problem, not only because of the current concern we have about how women and girls are treated in Afghanistan and around the world, as well as here in the United States--that is the main reason for our concern--but it is also connected directly, and I think is inextricably intertwined, with our strategy as it relates to governance in Afghanistan. We know that since the fall of the Taliban, there have been some improvements in women's rights, such as the creation of the Ministry for Women's Affairs and the guarantee of equal rights for men and women in the new constitution. Indeed, Afghan women remain among the worst off in the world with respect to life expectancy as well as quality of life. So even though progress has been made, we need to see a lot more in the way of results. I am encouraged by the recent measures undertaken at the top of Afghanistan's Government to include the voices of women in the consultation process leading up to the Peace Jirga. However, I believe it is essential the Afghan Government take immediate measures-- immediate measures--to include qualified women, who have a record of public service--civic or community service--in meaningful senior roles at every level of the government and in the peace process. We were--I know I was; and many of us were--very impressed by the women we met who are active participants in the Afghan Government. But much more needs to be done. Let me move next to more of the military aspects of our strategy: both in Marjah--the operation that took place over the last couple of months--as well as the upcoming operations in Kandahar. On April 29, the Pentagon released its biannual report to Congress on the last 6 months in Afghanistan. By all accounts, it was sobering. The report portrays an Afghan Government with limited credibility among its people. In 92 districts assessed for their support of the Afghan Government or their antagonism to it, not one supported the government, not one in 92. I realize that sometimes when a report comes out, it is dated and it may be that improvements may have been made over the last couple of months, but the most recent report was not good in terms of support for the Afghan Government. Again, our strategy will not be successful unless the Afghan Government can improve those numbers of support from its own people. This is an important issue that President Karzai and the rest of the government must continue to address. I think they are taking steps to do that but much more needs to be done. The Pentagon report highlights one positive development: The Taliban is seen by 52 percent of Afghans as the chief cause of instability. So the message is getting out to the people about the destructive impact of the Taliban. This perception provides the Afghan Government with an opportunity to show itself as the protector of the people. One area in which ISAF and international aid donors can help build public confidence in their government is food security and distribution. Not only is the agricultural sector critical to the well- being of all Afghans, both agriculture and food distribution are caught up in the problems raised by Afghan dependence on opium cultivation, extortion, and corruption in aid and transport operations for that, as well as manipulation by national and local power brokers. The United States has begun shaping operations, mostly political, in and around Kandahar to prepare for the next major military campaign. While we can apply the lessons learned in Marjah, the Kandahar campaign will be a formidable test of our counterinsurgency plan. Kandahar is the second largest city in Afghanistan, the birthplace of the Taliban, and the Taliban still has considerable support there. In judging the success of Kandahar from Washington, we should be aware of the significant political and cultural complexities because of the coalition's need to shift between fighting and outreach in Afghanistan. The contest for public sentiment among Afghan civilians will arguably be more important over the long run than the relative effectiveness of each side's military skill. A functioning government which maintains credibility in the eyes of the people of Afghanistan will be necessary if civil military strategy is going to have any chance of success. We must continually stress the movement toward this goal so as not to lose sight of our objectives in Afghanistan. Again, we have to be concerned about three things: first, military concerns and the strategy as it relates to the military campaigns; second, governance; and third, development. The ability of nongovernmental organizations and other aid organizations to do great work is hampered by corruption and the ineffectiveness of the government. Militarily removing the Taliban influence must be accompanied by the timely and effective delivery of emergency aid and refugee assistance. It is only when the government has the capacity to operate in an effective manner that all the tools can be applied to increasing the quality of life of local Afghans as well as presenting an alternative to the Taliban's form of rule. The upcoming operations in Kandahar will be the largest to date aimed at securing the population through General McChrystal's population centric civil-military strategy. However, if the government is not capable of providing the capacity necessary to follow the military clearing operations, the strategy will not succeed. Our brave men and women who serve this country deserve a reliable partner in the Afghan Government. We must work assiduously and continually to realize this vision of a peaceful and stable Afghanistan. In conclusion, first of all, I wish to thank President Karzai for what he said here in the United States, what he did here to reiterate the goals we have, the partnership between our government and his government to get this policy right. After my two visits to Afghanistan in 2008 and 2009, I have been very critical of President Karzai. I must say, based upon the last couple of months, based upon the work he did here, the statements he made, and some actions he has taken, I have more cautious optimism, I will say, than I had before about his ability to move forward, helping us on this strategy; his ability to build confidence, the confidence of his own people; his ability to have a positive impact not only as it relates to our military strategy but, of course, especially governance as well as the development after military campaigns take place. I also appreciate the fact that President Karzai showed great respect not only for our fighting men and women in the field and their families but especially for those who gave, as President Lincoln said a long time ago in Gettysburg, the last full measure of devotion to their country when he visited the graves of some of those who perished in that conflict. So we have reason to be more optimistic, but the test will be over time and based upon real results, facts on the ground as it relates to the military operations, governance, and development. So this strategy bears a lot of scrutiny. In conclusion, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Los Angeles Times story of May 3, 2010, entitled ``Key Bomb Ingredient is Smuggled in Freely in Pakistan.''

Mr. CASEY. Finally, let me also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a summary of a ``Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan'' issued by the Department of Defense dated April 2010.

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

Mr. CASEY. Thank you, Mr. President. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to speak about amendment No. 3878. We are in the midst of the worst recession, the worst economic climate since the 1930s. That is irrefutable. We have had record job loss, more than 15 million Americans out of work. In Pennsylvania, some 582,000 people are out of work, with the unemployment rate hitting 9 percent. I know a lot of other States have had double-digit unemployment for a long time, but 9 percent is still more than 580,000 people out of work. There are a number of ways to measure the horrific consequences of this recession--all those individuals out of work, all those families destroyed and communities destroyed, by one estimate $8 trillion of wealth lost by Americans. We can attribute $100,000 per family in negative impact due to what happened on Wall Street. In the midst of that, a number of people in the Senate have worked very hard to try to put in place new strategies to create jobs, to help us continue to recover. The impact of the recovery bill is still being felt. We are recovering. Economic growth has picked up. Job growth has improved substantially, but we still have a long way to go. Despite that, we still have people in Washington who don't seem to get it. They seem to want to continue to protect Wall Street. Time after time, when an amendment is proposed to the Restoring American Financial Stability Act, there are still some who want to protect Wall Street. The choice is very clear. There is no middle ground. The American people know it. We can either protect Wall Street and let them do what they have been doing for years, destroying lives because of high-risk practices, allowing these scheme artists--and that is a charitable way of describing people who commit fraud or at least engage in practices that make a very small sliver of the American people on Wall Street very wealthy, creating a handful of billionaires at the expense of tens of millions of Americans who lost their job, their home or, in some cases, both and are in the process of trying to dig out of that and rebuild their lives. You are on one side or the other in this debate. You are either for Wall Street or you are for reforms that will, at long last, begin to hold Wall Street accountable. It is essential to the economy that we pass this legislation. If we don't, we will be right back where we were, with no commonsense rules in place, Wall Street doing virtually what they want to do to make money, no matter what the consequences downstream with regard to those who lose their jobs, their homes and, by definition, their hopes and dreams. We have to put in place new strategies not only to create jobs but to reduce the deficit. We cannot do that unless we take affirmative steps to hold Wall Street accountable and give some measure of protection to families who have, for too long, been at the other end of the bargain. They lose their house. They lose their job. Wall Street wins. They lose $100,000, on average, per family. Wall Street wins very big. One of the things that should be in place is at least the examination of something that was discussed at the G-20 conference in September of last year in Pittsburgh, where the leaders of the 20 largest economies came together and talked about our financial crisis which, of course, is an international crisis. It is not something limited to the United States. Recently, the European Parliament took the first step by passing a resolution supporting a study on a financial transaction tax, a fee. The resolution specifically calls for an in-depth study that would provide technical recommendations on how such a fee should be structured across the Euro zone. The study proposed in my amendment mirrors the European study and positions the United States to have an informed debate about the issue. This study is simple but can have a tremendous impact on the economy because of what we will learn. The study would examine the implementation of a transaction fee on all security-based transactions, including swaps and security-based swaps, except those that are somehow hedging or mitigating risk. Also included in these transactions would be stock and debt instruments. Here is what the study would assess. Again, this is not the imposition of a transaction fee. This is a study of the imposition of a transaction fee or the implementation thereof. The study would assess, first, past uses of such fees, what has happened in the recent past and our experience with this, other countries that have tried this, other experts who have weighed in, obviously, on the advantages and disadvantages of this kind of fee, and the potential to raise revenue. We hear a lot of talk in this Chamber about reducing the deficit. It is going to be pretty difficult to do that in the current environment unless we have new revenue. One of the ways to have new revenue in place is to have a transaction fee. Again, this amendment would simply require the study of a transaction fee. Next, the study would assess the impact on financial markets, which is something we have to consider and weigh and analyze, and the impact on risky investment behavior. We might know the answer to that, generally, because with a transaction fee in place, it is probably less likely that a financial institution would engage in the kind of risky, reckless, irresponsible and, in some cases, illegal behavior they have engaged in which has cost the average American family $100,000 per family because of what they did on Wall Street over a number of years. The study called for in the amendment would be open to public comment, would be conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, in coordination with the Department of the Treasury. It is important to have those three agencies involved in the review. It is not just going to be farmed out to some think tank, where it can be criticized because it lands on one side of the political divide or another. It is going to be conducted, if we get this in place, by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, two agencies with substantial experience and expertise about this kind of a fee, a transaction fee, working in coordination with the Treasury Department. It is important to have those agencies involved instead of having a study done by a group that has, in many cases, limited expertise. Given the dramatic cost of the recession on our economy, the horrific and destabilizing job loss we have had, not to mention the world economic downturn, we need to be proactive and thoughtful and analytical in assessing a transaction fee and the positive impact it can have on reducing the deficit and creating jobs. For those who will weigh in against the amendment, I ask: Where is the other revenue they are going to need to reduce the deficit or at least to allocate part of the revenue we generate to reducing the deficit? What are they going to do about job creation? If they are not doing some work on both of those, they are not too concerned about where the economy is going. If we are going to fully recover and grow and sustain growth overtime, we need job creation, and we need to reduce the deficit. Predictably, I received a letter recently from the Chamber of Commerce that has come out against the study of a transaction fee. In my judgment, it is entirely predictable that the Chamber of Commerce of the United States is opposed. I will leave it to them to make their case. I hope the amendment has bipartisan and broad support, which I believe eventually it will. Unfortunately for the Chamber of Commerce, they are doing what they always do. They are trying to protect Wall Street in a debate on the study of a transaction fee but in the larger debate as well. It is very simple. There are two places to be--protecting Wall Street or standing for reform. The Chamber of Commerce has just weighed in on the side of Wall Street. They will have to answer to all the small businesses in Pennsylvania, for example, and across the country and even larger businesses but especially small businesses that have been devastated by what has been happening on Wall Street. The idea that the Chamber of Commerce is coming out against the study--the study; the analysis--of a transaction fee is disturbing. It tells you a lot about where they stand in this debate. I know where the American people are. They want reform, and they want it now, and they do not want it watered down. They do not want the bill gutted with amendments. They want to have information they should have a right to expect on the effect of a transaction fee--good, bad, or indifferent. They should have that information. What the American people do not want is the Chamber of Commerce or any other organization standing between Wall Street and what has been happening there and reform. I urge the leadership of the Chamber of Commerce to go back, take another look at this, take another look at what is the harm of having a study conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in conjunction with the U.S. Department of the Treasury. I do not care what year it is. I do not care what administration it is, those three parts of our government should have the right and should be instructed by the Congress to study something that has potential--significant potential--to lower the deficit, or help us lower the deficit, and to create jobs. But to have the usual knee-jerk political reaction the Chamber of Commerce and others will have is not in the best interests of the American people and is not helping in any way the debate we are having on the floor of the Senate. So for the chamber folks--or for their allies--it is simple, folks. You have two choices. You can stand here and protect, with all your might, the practices on Wall Street--the fraud, the manipulation, the scheme artistry that put us into this ditch we are in right now--or you can be for reform. You have a choice to make. It is very simple. There is no middle ground. I hope the Members of the Senate would take a closer look at this than apparently the chamber has and stand up for the American people and show at long last we are not going to allow Wall Street to destroy more lives, we are not going to allow Wall Street to allow an adverse impact of $100,000 per family to transpire again, that we are going to at long last provide real reform for the American people and hold Wall Street accountable for the abusive practices they engage in, for the dishonesty and fraud and sometimes criminal conduct they engage in. It is about time the groups that are opposing reform--of course, the chamber has been opposing lots of reform lately; we will not go into all of it, but I would hope the Chamber of Commerce would make it very clear where they stand in this debate. Because when they come out against proposals such as this, they stand to protect Wall Street at the expense of the American people. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak about the issue that is before not only the Senate--and, thankfully, we are in the debating process, finally, after many days of discussion about debate--I think this is also an issue that is on the front burner, so to speak, around kitchen tables or wherever families are gathered or small business owners and others. It is about reforming our financial system and making it more accountable. I want to back up a second and put this in the perspective of where our economy is. We have an economy which has resulted in a job loss that is a record of one kind or another. We have heard it over and over again: The recession we are living through right now--even though we are recovering--is the worst economic climate we have had since the 1930s. There are lots of ways to measure that, but, of course, the most important data point or number is the unemployment rate and the number of Americans who are out of work--some 15 million. In Pennsylvania, over 582,000 people are out of work. Our rate is 9 percent. A lot of States would rather a 9-percent rate than 11 or 12 or 13 or 14. But in our State, 9 percent means 582,000 people out of work through no fault of their own. That is the reality with which we are living. One of the ways to dig out of that hole, so to speak, or get the car out of the ditch--pick your image or analogy--is not only to put in place the job creation strategies which we have put in place over the last year--and even more recently in the last couple of months--but also to reform our financial system to prevent the abuses that took place that led to the problems that so many Americans are experiencing right now. One of the problems we have had is the fact that we have not just big banks--that was always the case in America; we always had large institutions and small institutions--but we have gone beyond big to what you might call a megacategory--megabanks--that have too much power concentrated in them and too much impact on our system. So what developed was this too-big-to-fail problem. It is a big problem we have to make sure we prevent from happening again, where a bank is such a big institution that it has tentacles reaching far into the economy, and the failure of that one institution or the failure of two or three wrecks the economy for so many others. So one thing we are going to do in this legislation is to make sure that doesn't happen. So how do we hold Wall Street accountable and how do we put consumers in control at long last? Well, first of all, we have to have strict regulations to stop Wall Street from engaging in reckless activities. We have to stop the reckless gambling that Wall Street was engaged in for far too long. We have to end the taxpayer bailouts forever. That is one thing we have to achieve. I mentioned the too-big-to-fail problem. We have to end too big to fail as a problem for our system. We have to have a new cop on the beat. This isn't just a question of having a couple of tweaks in regulations, we need tough regulations and tough enforcement. Of course, the analogy we use is one of law enforcement and having a new cop, or a number of cops, on the street--on Wall Street in particular. We have to put consumers in control with information about transactions that are in plain English. One of the problems we are experiencing now is that we got away from the system we had in place. I am not just speaking of strong regulation and mechanisms to control powerful institutions so they can't wreck our economy because of their reckless behavior and the scheming artistry and the fraud that took place over far too many years, but the basic concept that people in a community knew the bankers and the bankers knew the customers, so to speak. So if you went to get a mortgage for your home, you actually knew who you were dealing with. One side was invested in the other. That worked very well for a long period of time. We have gotten away from that. I am not saying we can replicate the system we had 30 or 40 or 50 years ago, but we have to borrow some of those concepts where there was more accountability and more sense of investment. We know that 15 years ago--not that long ago--the six largest banks in the United States had assets totaling 17 percent of the gross domestic product. Where are those six megabanks today? They control not the equivalent of 17 percent of GDP, they control 63 percent. It changed from 17 percent to 63 percent in 15 years, virtually unchecked. So instead of supporting a small business in a community or a Little League team or a family trying to borrow money or a small business, these megabanks gathered deposits from Wall Street. They sliced and diced them, they leveraged them to the hilt, and then used the hard- earned wages and savings of Americans to make a handful--a very small, tiny number--of Americans incredibly wealthy. It is the kind of wealth that is staggering, almost incomprehensible and almost incalculable. Make no mistake about it, these megabanks profited tremendously from this new model. That is an understatement. Over the last 30 years, profits and compensation in the banking industry have skyrocketed. I don't think wages have skyrocketed. At best, they have been flat for a long time. When they have increased, it has been in very small numbers. So we have megabanks and a flawed system leading to megaprofits for a tiny percentage of the American people, even a small percentage of the business community, so to speak. American families have been living with this problem. The big guys got us in the ditch, and as we are trying to push the economy out of the ditch, the American taxpayers have had to pay the freight. Well, it is time we made some basic changes, and this legislation gives us this chance. Now is not the time to slow down and delay and wait and scratch our heads. We know it is wrong, we know what the problem is, and we know how to fix it. This morning, we have the continuation of debate on the bill. We had an example last week where Goldman Sachs came before the Senate, not in a situation where the Senate was a prosecutor or a law enforcement agency, but the Senate played an important role as it relates to Goldman Sachs. Chairman Carl Levin, chairman of the relevant investigative committee--said we were focused on policy and ethics, and I think that is an appropriate role for the Senate. Now, what happened in that Goldman situation? Well, there are a lot of ways to describe it, but one way to look at it is this way: Goldman sold investors a product--in this case a derivative product--and its value was tied to the performance of a big portfolio of subprime mortgages. That is where it started. But it appears that Goldman worked both sides of the deal. They would sell these products to investors on the one hand, while also plotting with a hedge fund manager who was betting against the performance of the very same mortgages. It gives ``conflict of interest'' new meaning, and it is a disturbing, alarming image for a lot of Americans--selling on one side and then going over to the other side and plotting and scheming to make money, not worrying about what is downwind, what is downstream, the horrific consequences, such as a wrecking ball to a building, and just kind of laughing all the way to the bank. I know I am in overtime, so I will wrap up. I will be back to talk about an amendment I will be offering, but I do want to say how much I appreciate the work that has been done to date. We are at the beginning of the debate on the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010, which will establish an early warning system; enhance those protections for consumers and investors; strengthen the supervision of large, complex financial organizations; and finally regulate, at long last, in a much more aggressive way, the so-called over-the-counter derivatives market. I see our chairman of the Banking Committee, Chairman Dodd, is here. He has done great work in this area not only more recently but for many years, and we are grateful for his leadership. I know the debate is in the early stages, but I think we are going to have a good product by the end of it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the business we have in front of us here in the Senate, financial regulatory reform. But I did want to note that we meet in an hour of real economic trauma for many families across America and across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I know the Presiding Officer sees this as well in his home State of New Mexico. We have lots of people out of work. And although there is no question in my mind that our economy has begun to recover, and has recovered substantially, we still have a way to go. So even as we debate financial reform and the intricacies of that, it is important that we remember there are still a lot of people out of work. The latest numbers nationally are that 15 million people are without work across America, and in Pennsylvania it is 582,000 people. I was looking at the numbers for the month of March, region by region in Pennsylvania. We have 14 labor markets, the numbers of which are charted on a monthly basis. Looking at the areas of the State where it is above our unemployment rate, we have several parts of Pennsylvania where, if it is not 10 percent, it is very close to that. In Erie, PA, up in northwestern Pennsylvania, it is a 10-percentage point unemployment. I realize for some States they have been in double-digit figures for a while, but for places such as Erie, it is 10 percent. The Lehigh Valley, on the eastern side of our State, is getting close to 10. It is 9.8. My home area of northeastern Pennsylvania is 9.8. Johnstown's numbers, an area in southwestern Pennsylvania, which has always had higher numbers of unemployment, are getting close to 10. So throughout our State the numbers are very high. When people in any State see those high numbers and they see the joblessness, they see people who have lost their homes or job or both, when they see that people have lost their hopes and dreams in this process, when they see all that around them, either in their own lives or the lives of their families and neighbors, they look to Washington to see what we are doing about it. They want to know: How can you respond to that? How can you take action to help us? I think we have, in some measure, but this Wall Street reform is going to be part of it as well. We passed the Recovery bill, which is having an impact. We passed the HIRE Act a couple of months ago, and that is having an impact, and will have more of an impact as time goes by. So there have been a series of jobs bills that have helped substantially, and will continue to help, but one of the most urgent priorities and questions most Americans have is, who is going to be on our side? Who will fight for us when it comes to whether we will empower local communities to create jobs and have some security? Will we continue to empower Wall Street and the dealmakers, the scam artists who have ripped people off to make a profit? And not just a profit, what we used to think of as a lot of money--$1 million. We are talking about profits we cannot even begin to comprehend. A very small number of Americans, a very small number of institutions, such as these megabanks, are getting these profits purely out of greed and purely out of a willingness to cast aside people's lives and their futures, without worry as to whether the actions they take on Wall Street will cause people to lose their jobs. That is what people across the country, who are not on Wall Street, are asking us to consider. Of course, part of that is happening in this debate. But I think it has become more apparent to the American people on this question of whose side we are on, that there is one side--this side of the aisle-- that is trying not only to get the policy right and get a bill prepared, but that we are trying to move that bill forward. One of the ways we move a bill forward is to have a debate. Why shouldn't the Senate be having a debate, unless there is a question about whether you are on one side or the other? I think our friends on the other side of the aisle are going to have to ask themselves whether they are on the side of the people; if they are on the side of communities and small businesses, who are telling us to get something done about these Wall Street problems that have caused 15 million people to lose their job--and in Pennsylvania we have lost 582,000, as said I before. People are wondering, whose side are you on? If you are not on the side of debate and getting the bill passed, then you are on the side of Wall Street. It is very simple. I know some of the policy gets complicated, but this isn't complicated at all. If you are on the side of the megabanks and Wall Street, here is what you are on the side of: You are on the side of continuing what has happened for a generation now, with our usual and more familiar banking system that has been altered in a way so that it has become almost unrecognizable to people who used to walk down the street, figuratively, but almost literally, or walk or drive not too very far in a community and go to a bank. They knew the institution. They knew the people who worked there. They knew who was in charge. They dealt with a banker in a very personal way. A lot of that is gone. If we do the right thing here, I think we can bring some of that sense back. But at a minimum, put the brakes on, put rules in place to govern what the scam artists on Wall Street do every day of the week to make a profit, to rip people off, and to destroy our economy and to cause record-high unemployment. In that scenario I talked about before, what we used to have was that people knew their bankers. They knew each party was invested in the other. The banker wanted to make a good loan, obviously. That was part of his or her business. But he or she knew that making that loan had to be on good terms, in a way that borrower could pay it back. Obviously, the borrower--going to the local bank as a local business, to people they knew--was invested in their success as well. The borrower wanted the bank to do well. It was part of their community. But now we have a system where, if you enter into a mortgage transaction, that flies off to Wall Street, and then on Wall Street they slice and dice it so a lot of wealthy people make record profits, and they laugh--laugh all the way to the bank, not worrying about whose life was destroyed back in that community. These megabanks have prospered in ways we cannot even begin to describe or appreciate. We continue, so to speak back home, grappling with the results of that, the aftermath of that: high unemployment-- record-high numbers--and a ballooning deficit. Why are we even having a debate--trying to have a debate, I should say, if our friends get to the point of allowing us to have a debate--why are we having this debate? Because Wall Street put the American people into this position. We need to reinvent this megabank model, change it substantially, and move it toward a system of smaller banks and more competition. I thought that is what our friends were for. I thought they were in favor of competition. Many people know community bankers. The Independent Community Bankers of America say there are almost 8,000 community banks operating across the country. Even with this problem we have with megabanks and Wall Street, those 8,000 community banks are still 97 percent of our banks. That is the good news, that that number is high. These institutions, as we know, have boards of directors made up of people in the community, as it should be, who are invested in the community and the success of those borrowers. They are also institutions that are a lot smaller in terms of size. In terms of asset size, 91 percent of community banks have assets of less than $1 billion. They are nowhere near a big bank and nowhere near, obviously, a megabank. The largest of our megabanks is Bank of America, which, by September 2009--and I am sure the number is much higher today, but as of September 2009, it had assets of $2.3 trillion. It is hard to describe that. That is most of the Federal budget. We have a Federal budget that is several trillion. That is a big share, if you equate it to the entire Federal budget--not the full budget but certainly a big share of it, $2.3 trillion. Consumers do not reap huge benefits from these banks. We know that. If anything, they are harmed by the unchecked power of these banks. As I said last week, three of our largest megabanks have cut participation in a key Small Business Administration lending program by between 85 percent and 90 percent from one year to the next. Just at the time we have a bad economy--that they caused, in large measure--and just at the time we need help for small businesses, these same big banks that got the benefit of all of that wealth and all of that scam artistry and fraud, in some cases, are not helping us create jobs in small business. To say that is perverted and disturbing does not even begin to capture the sentiment. But I will not dwell on that. Then we get to the question of fees, bank fees. We have heard a lot about these. We all have experienced it. Fees for checking accounts and other services are lower at community banks than at the megabanks, the big institutions. According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, in one quarter last year, the four largest megabanks raised fees related to deposits by an average of 8 percent. In the same period, community banks lowered their fees by an average of 12 percent. So in one quarter last year, the four big banks raised their fees by an average of 8 percent and the smaller community banks lowered those same fees. That is another reason community banks make a lot more sense for most Americans. The reason for the big difference in fees charged by the smaller community banks versus the big mega Wall Street banks is not just that they want to try to be consumer or customer friendly, it is because there is competition injected into the system of community banks. Economist Simon Johnson said: With low interest rates, the [big] banks could raise money from depositors virtually for free; they could borrow cheaply from each other; they could borrow cheaply at the Fed's discount window; they could sell bonds at low interest rates because of FDIC debt guarantees; they could swap their asset- backed securities for cash with the Fed; they could sell their mortgages to Fannie and Freddie . . . and so on. It is like dot, dot, dot. We have heard all about this. They had all the opportunities in the world. Their plate was full: I am a big megabank, and I need a little extra help here to make some more millions for this guy or that guy or to make billions for the bank or for individual bankers. I need a little help, so I will go to the Fed discount window. That was one option. I just charge a little more over here. They had all these options to make more money--because of the generosity of the Federal Government, by the way, in large measure. The Federal Government helps a lot of institutions every day of the week, including banks. The same folks who complain about government want bankers to get all the help in the world from government. The big banks had all these options at their disposal if they got into a period where they needed a little extra help. What about the borrower who got into a bad mortgage because some local scam artist or maybe a scam artist on Wall Street put them into a mortgage they couldn't afford? What happens when they can't pay their mortgage? What happens when they lose their job and then can't pay the mortgage and lose health care? Do they have a menu, a list, a full plate, or a full table of options? No. They have very few options. For a lot of Americans who lost their job because of Wall Street or who lost their house because of what Wall Street was doing or lost their livelihood because of some fraud on Wall Street or some scam artist on Wall Street, they have very few options. But the big banks have lots of options. This is not just about what is fair and what is right and making sure we have competition in our banking system. It is more than that. It is about a gross disparity of power residing on Wall Street and injuring the ability of people just to make ends meet, just to have a job, or just to be able to borrow money in a way that will allow them to purchase a house or do something else in their lives. What this means is, despite offering better and cheaper consumer products, our community banks at the local level are struggling to get by, while their big brothers, their megabank brothers are on Wall Street making more money than we can even compute or comprehend. The community banks, which used to be the foundation of our system and the place where people could go to borrow, are having trouble, are struggling to get by. One of the ways to confront this is not just to pass a bill that sounds good here and there and looks like reform but to have a final product after debate. Again, I hope our friends will get to the point of debating this bill. It makes sense that if something is very important and the American people say do something about it, you ought to debate it and pass it--just a little free advice to the other side. But we have to do more than just pass something; we have to pass something that works. We have to pass something that will be meaningful in the lives of real people. If we allow these megabanks to retain their power and their influence and their wealth, to the detriment of working families, small businesses, and our economy in general--if we allow them to have that power, it will be nice to pass a bill, but we will not be getting to the root cause or one of the root causes of our problem. That is why I and Senator Kaufman, Senator Brown, and others are supporting the SAFE Banking Act. I thank those two Senators for their work on this over a long period of time. This will be an amendment to the act we are working on, the Restoring Financial Stability Act of 2010. This part of it, this will be a new element to it if we can get the amendment agreed to--I think we can--to the SAFE Banking Act. This is what it will do--basically, four things. I will go through them quickly. First of all, impose a 10-percent cap on any bank share of the total deposits of government-backed depository institutions, so placing a cap on that. Place a 2-percent-of-GDP limit on all nondeposit liabilities, so limiting and circumscribing what these megabanks can do. Third, place a 3-percent-of-GDP limit on all nondeposit liabilities, including any off-balance-sheet provisions as well as any systemically significant nonbank financial institution. Fourth, we would put into law a 6-percent leverage limit for bank holding companies and selected nonbank financial institutions. So instead of leaving size limitations in the hands of regulators-- and I know regulators work hard and they always try to do the right thing in almost every instance--this amendment would at long last put some clearly defined rules in place about the size and the leverage of financial institutions. We can't just say: OK, megabank, you can do whatever you want, you can get bigger and do whatever you want, and after the fact we will have some regulators try to mitigate the damage you are causing or try to rein you in a little bit. Sometimes that works, but our recent history tells us it is not going to work the way it should. So we need some clearly defined rules that apply to these megabanks and would only impact a handful of institutions, a very small number of institutions--these large megabanks that are at the heart of the problem. The alternative to placing these limitations on the big banks, on their size and the leverage they have, is a continuation of the system we have right now, the so-called too-big-to-fail system. So a bank gets so big and has so many tentacles out into our economy and across the world that we say: Gosh, if they are in trouble, we can't let them go. They are too big and have too much of an impact if they fail. We have to help them. In addition to passing a law that ends bailouts, we also have to end this too big to fail. It is kind of a straitjacket our system has been in: it does not allow us much freedom, but it gives a soft landing to a lot of these megabanks that really should be cut down in size. We know we need to change that. I commend the efforts to increase the ability of regulators to oversee and enforce discipline, but candidly--and I think our history shows this--it is not enough. It is not enough to just give regulators more power or more resources. We need to pull apart or deconstruct in some measure these megabanks because they are too big, too powerful, and they have caused too much damage. Having a regulatory system in place will not be enough. That is why we need the SAFE Banking Act. We also need to take other steps to address this root cause as well as other root causes. We know community banks are banks that are better for families and for small businesses--the two parts of our society, the two parts of our economy, our families and our small businesses. They are saying to us: Do something that is real. Do something that not only makes sense in terms of policy but will help at the local level in terms of improving our economy. So more banks mean more competition, and they also mean more customer-friendly products. It also means more loans for small businesses that get them from community banks and will continue to if we do the right thing. It means a retail banking system that more closely resembles our Nation's community banks than the Wall Street model that has indeed failed us--and that is an understatement--and failed us significantly. So that is why I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the SAFE Act amendment to our financial reform legislation. It is about that we took a step that has real meaning and real impact on one of the biggest problems we have in America, where you have megabanks that are doing quite well, and if we allow them to continue to do well, they will have a few individuals in a few institutions across America who will benefit from that. But most of the rest of us, most people, especially those out of work, most small businesses, will not benefit from these megabanks. We need to change this, and we need to do it in the course of this debate. I would once again say to my colleagues, if we debate it, it will tell us very clearly whose side we are on. If you continue to hold up debate, I think the American people know whose side you are on. It is not their side. I ask unanimous consent that any time in quorum calls on the motion to proceed to S. 3217 during today's session be divided equally between both sides.

Mr. CASEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 499, submitted earlier today.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, at 5 p.m., Monday, the Senate will proceed to a rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the Wall Street reform legislation.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to mark the 40th anniversary of Earth Day. Started in 1970 by Wisconsin's Senator Gaylord Nelson as an environmental teach-in, Earth Day has become a global event. More than 20 million people participated in the first Earth Day and that number has grown to over 500 million in 175 countries. Since the first Earth Day, the United States has made significant strides in improving the quality of our environment--our air, our water, our land, and our natural resources. The days of having to turn on street lights in downtown Pittsburgh at noon because of the pollution emitted by coal plants, steel mills, and other industries are long gone. No longer does the Cuyahoga River in Ohio catch fire due to the uncontrolled discharge of oil and other pollutants. Long gone too is the mining of coal and other minerals without regard to the impact on land or water. And today, one can hike through Yellowstone National Park or the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and hear the howling of wolves, a species that was almost completely wiped out in the lower 48 States. These are just a few examples of how our Nation has embraced the tenants of environmental awareness put forth on that first Earth Day in 1970. Let me relate to you another story of our Nation's environmental progress that is a source of particular pride for Pennsylvanians. Rachel Carson is considered one of the pioneers of the environmental movement in the United States. Ms. Carson was born in 1907 and grew up on a small family farm near Springdale in western Pennsylvania, went to the Pennsylvania College for Women in Pittsburgh, which later became Chatham College, and completed her M.A. in zoology at Johns Hopkins University. She began her career as a biologist with what was then the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. Her seminal work in 1962, Silent Spring, brought to the forefront the dangers of DDT and other pesticides. DDT was a major cause of decline in the population of birds of prey, including the peregrine falcon. Because of the efforts of Ms. Carson and others, DDT was eventually banned from use in the United States in 1972. Today, peregrine falcons have returned to much of their former range, including a pair of falcons that have been nesting on the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection office tower in Harrisburg, which fittingly, is named the Rachel Carson Building. Ms. Carson's call to action on the environment was also a driving force behind a 1972 amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution clearly articulates the right of Pennsylvania's citizens to clean air, pure water, and the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment, and ensuring these rights to generations yet to come. The first Earth Day was also a major impetus for our Nation to move forward with a myriad of Federal legislation--including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, and the Endangered Species Act--that provided the regulatory framework for America to be a world leader in environmental stewardship. Just as importantly, we have seen since the first Earth Day that environmental protection can go hand-in-hand with economic growth. According to US EPA, since 1980, total emissions of six principal air pollutants--carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide--decreased by 54 percent. And during this same period, gross domestic product, GDP, increased by more than 126 percent while the U.S. population grew by 34 percent, clearly demonstrating that we can maintain a strong, robust economy while at the same time protecting and promoting a safe and healthy environment for all Americans. Today, as a nation, we need to applaud the accomplishments we have made since the first Earth Day in improving the quality of our air, water, and land. But we also need to acknowledge that the task of protecting our environment is far from complete. The remaining challenges are many. Nutrient pollution is still a concern for the Chesapeake Bay and other waterways. Mercury from large stationary sources still threatens the health of our Nation's vulnerable population of infants and pregnant woman. And many of our urban areas still exceed national standards for air quality. But the most daunting environmental challenge today is climate change. The scientific evidence about the threat of climate change cannot be disputed. We must move forward with climate and energy legislation that will put us on a path that ends our unsustainable reliance on foreign energy. A path that will create new, clean energy jobs and that will regain our competitive edge over countries like China, which is out-investing us and out-innovating us when it comes to new energy technologies. A path that regains control of our environment, our economy, and our national security. Let me close with a quote from Rachel Carson. It goes, ``Those who contemplate the beauty of the earth find reserves of strength that will endure as long as life lasts.'' So, as we celebrate Earth Day today, let us all take a moment to consider the beauty and wonder of the natural world around us. And let us use the strength we take away from these moments to continue to preserve and protect our Nation's rich natural history and environment for our children and grandchildren. So that future generations will always have a clean environment, a robust economy, and a secure Nation.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to; that a Coburn substitute amendment to the preamble be agreed to; the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 255, which was received from the House.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m., Monday, April 26; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there be a period of morning business until 3 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; that following morning business, the Senate resume the motion to proceed to S. 3217, Wall Street reform.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue that was the subject of a Foreign Relations Committee hearing today, of course, chaired by our chairman, John Kerry, and the ranking member, Senator Dick Lugar. Today in America and worldwide, every 5 seconds a child dies from starvation. Every 5 seconds across the world, every 5 seconds every day is the reality that stares us in the face. While the United States has historically played an important role in addressing hunger internationally, this simple fact should serve as a galvanizing call to action on this issue. The 2008 global food crisis brought attention to the fact that emergency food assistance was not enough, as generous as our country is and as important as that strategy is to confronting the problem. The emergency food assistance that year was not enough, and donors in recipient countries that need to work together to address this systemic problem need to do so even more so today. The Obama administration has rightly prioritized food security and the political support in the Senate is growing every day for the Lugar- Casey Global Food Security Act. I commend Senator Lugar for his work on these issues for many years and, of course, I wish to commend and thank the work that our chairman, Senator John Kerry, is doing on this issue every day as well. Creating an environment where local farmers can produce for themselves and their communities as well as easily trade to get their goods to market is the key to fundamentally changing this ongoing crisis. With a host of competing priorities for the attention of the United States, I believe there are at least two reasons food security matters, even in the midst of some of the challenges we are facing domestically. First, this is a humanitarian crisis of immense proportions that we can go a long way toward solving. I think when we talk about this issue, no matter who we are, no matter what our station in life is, this is an issue that we come to, summoned by our conscience, and I think that is true in the Senate as well. As one of the richest countries in the world, I believe we have a moral obligation to do all we can to help. This crisis is solvable with a combination of assistance and emphasis on providing small farmers around the world the know-how, the technology, and the means to provide for themselves. The second reason, in addition to this being a humanitarian crisis as to why this is so important, is global hunger is a national security issue. Instability arising from conflict across the world over access to food is a documented problem. The 2008 food crisis, unfortunately, brought this into sharp, acute focus. We saw it in Somalia, where struggles to gain access to food have enveloped population centers in violence. We have seen it in Egypt as citizens rioted for access to bread. We have seen it in Haiti more recently, where hospital beds filled in 2008 with those injured during food riots. Increased instability in any of these countries has a direct impact on U.S. national security interests. The root causes of this perfect storm of crisis are well known but worth recounting. In 2008, food demand was driven higher due to expanding population and rising incomes. More cereals were needed to feed livestock for the production of meat and dairy products and to fill increasing demand for biofuels across the world. Higher oil prices, combined with weak harvests and rising global demand, created a scramble for resources. Wheat prices more than doubled and rice prices more than tripled between January and May of 2008. Twenty-eight countries imposed export bans on their crops, driving up commodity prices and limiting supply. This led to political unrest across the globe. It concentrated among developing countries with large, food-insecure, poor urban populations. While this was indeed a perfect storm of events, the underlying issues that created this crisis continued. In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, 80 to 90 percent of all cereal prices remain 25 percent higher than they were before the crisis began. In many Asian and Latin American and Caribbean countries, prices are still more than 25 percent higher than in the precrisis period of time. In the wake of the economic crisis, the World Food Programme began receiving requests for assistance even from countries that previously were able to provide for themselves. The peripheral effects of food insecurity are considerable. High rates of hunger are shown to be linked to gender inequality, especially in terms of education and literacy, which also negatively affects the rate of child malnutrition. This number is stunning. It is estimated that 60 percent of the world's chronically hungry are women and girls-- 60 percent--20 percent of whom are children under the age of 5. It is almost incalculable. Those numbers are staggering and should do more than just bother us and just inform our conscience; they should also motivate us to do something about this crisis. I cite these figures, and too often in Washington we are guilty of doing just that--citing figures. But they have real impact and real meaning. I have had the privilege of personally working with some very special women in Pennsylvania who took it upon themselves to really highlight some of these issues. The Witnesses to Hunger is a project that started in Philadelphia, PA. These women were given cameras to photograph their own lives, to tell us the truth of their experiences, and to raise awareness on many critical issues, including specifically hunger. Last year, I had the honor, as did my wife Teresa, of bringing their exhibit to Washington, and in November we launched a tour across Pennsylvania to highlight this issue. I cannot begin to describe how moved I was--as were so many others who saw this exhibit--to see the photographs taken by these women and to hear their stories of hunger and of poverty. Their bravery and rare courage in sharing the struggles they face to provide a safe, nurturing home for their children will always stay with me. These mothers who brought Witnesses to Hunger to life are constant reminders that the programs we in Congress advocate for and the new initiatives we can develop can have a profound impact on people's lives, whether it is in our towns and communities in Pennsylvania or in any other State or around the world, because this is a problem our world and our country face. Hunger in a country such as Pakistan poses both a humanitarian and a security issue. Last year, over 77 million people in that country, Pakistan, were considered food insecure by the World Food Programme. That is nearly half of their population. As their military conducts its continued operations against extremist forces, their numbers could increase. Hunger and competition for food can lead to further instability and potentially undermine the Pakistani Government's leadership at a very critical time. The global food crisis is still a serious problem, and despite the efforts of the administration, we still have a lot of catching up to do in order to respond properly. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the U.S. commitment to agricultural development has declined in recent years, though emergency food assistance continues at robust levels. Worldwide, the share of agriculture in development assistance has fallen from a high of 13 percent in 1985 to 4 percent between 2002 and 2007. The U.S. development assistance to African agriculture fell from its peak of about $500 million in 1988 to less than $100 million in 2006. We can do a lot better than that. The USAID has been hardest hit during this period. The USAID once considered agricultural expertise to be a core strength but today operates under diminished capacity. That is an understatement. Here is what I mean. In 1990, USAID employed 181 agricultural specialists, but in 2009 just 22--from 181 to 22 in just those years, less than 20 years. That number has gone up from 22 recently, with the new administration, but it is still far too few to work on this problem. In the 1970s, the U.S. Government sponsored 20,000 annual scholarships for future leadership in agriculture, engineering, and related fields. Today, that number has fallen to less than 900. So we are not developing the workforce and expertise we need. We simply don't currently have adequate infrastructure in our government to respond to this crisis. The administration is making progress, though. The administration's Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, known by the acronym GHFSI, is a comprehensive approach to food security based on country- and community-led planning and collaboration. I welcome this opportunity to hear directly from the administration about this effort. While I know the Obama administration has worked assiduously to coordinate an interagency process and selection criteria for country participation around the world, questions remain in terms of overall leadership of the initiative, as well as its plan to develop internal expertise and capacity that is sustainable over the long term. In the Senate, we have worked to bring attention to the world's hungry. Senator Lugar, as I mentioned before, a respected leader in this field for decades, and I have joined together to introduce the Global Food Security Act. I will highlight three provisions before I conclude. First, the Global Food Security Act would provide enhanced coordination within the U.S. Government so that USAID, the Department of Agriculture, and other agencies are working together and not at cross-purposes. Second, this bill would expand U.S. investment in the agricultural productivity of developing nations, so that other nations facing escalating food prices can rely less on emergency food assistance and instead take steps to expand their own crop production. Every dollar invested in agricultural research and development generates $9 for every dollar worth of food in the developing worlds. Third, this bill, the Global Food Security Act, will modernize our system of emergency food assistance so that it is more flexible and can provide aid on short notice. We do that by authorizing a new $500 million fund for U.S. emergency food assistance. This is one of those rare occasions--unfortunately, too rare--where a serious crisis was greeted with substantial response by an administration--in this case, the Obama administration--as well as bipartisan collaboration in the Senate and the House. I am encouraged that there has been positive movement toward fundamentally changing how we look at food security issues. Such support, however, is not permanent, and we should enact this multiyear authorization bill to ensure that such congressional support exists in the future, many years from now. We cannot wait for another massive food crisis before taking action on this legislation. This is the right thing to do, and we will ultimately enhance the security of the United States and our allies. Mr. President, this isn't just a matter of being summoned by our conscience. That we know is part of the reason we are doing this. This is also a grave national security issue for us and our allies. For that reason and so many others, we need to pass the Global Food Security Act and support the administration's efforts on the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. 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 I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the nomination we are considering in the next few hours, which is the nomination of Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie. I can't tell you how proud I am to talk about his nomination. I have known him for a long time. I think it goes without saying that--and I join a lot of people who have spoken about him already and know him--I strongly support his nomination and confirmation for a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Tom Vanaskie is a legal scholar, he is fair minded, and he has unquestioned integrity and ability. He is an experienced Federal judge since his appointment in 1994. On top of all that, he is a decent, compassionate man. The Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary of the American Bar Association has unanimously rated Judge Vanaskie well qualified to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Vanaskie's biography highlights both his scholarly and professional accomplishments and the highest esteem in which he is held by his colleagues in the legal profession. He graduated magna cum laude from Lycoming College in Williamsport, PA, where he was also an honorable mention all-American football player, a first-team academic all-American, and he was the college's outstanding male student athlete, and the recipient of the highest award given to a graduating student. Then he went to Dickinson School of Law in Pennsylvania, from which he graduated cum laude in 1978, where Judge Vanaskie served as an editor of the law review and received the M. Vashti Burr award, a scholarship given by the faculty to the student deemed ``most deserving.'' After graduating from law school, Judge Vanaskie served as a law clerk for Judge William J. Nealon, chief judge at the time of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Judge Vanaskie practiced law for two highly regarded Pennsylvania law firms before his appointment to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in 1994. He became the Middle District's chief judge 5 years later, in 1999, and completed his 7-year term in that capacity in 2006. He was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to the Information Technology Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, where he served as chairman for 3 years. He also participated in several working groups at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, most recently on the Future of District CM/ECF Working Group, tasked with determining the design and development of the next generation of the Federal judiciary's electronic case filing program. Finally, he is an adjunct professor at Dickinson School of Law and has been active in civic and charitable endeavors in northeastern Pennsylvania. Like me, he is a northeastern Pennsylvania native and resident. Just a few accolades about his service from a wide variety of people. We could read a number of these. I will highlight a few: Lawyers who have appeared before Judge Vanaskie have expressed tremendous respect for his intellectual rigor and the disciplined attention he brings to the matters before him. One attorney, who tried over a dozen cases before Judge Vanaskie, has described him as ``objective, fair, analytical, dispassionate, extraordinarily careful, and very respectful of appellate authority.'' This same lawyer, the same practitioner, said he had not always agreed with Judge Vanaskie's decisions, but he always felt his rulings reflected what the judge considered to be the most appropriate result and the result that he was obligated to impose under the law. A U.S. district court judge, William J. Nealon, for whom he clerked, described him as follows: Superbly qualified. He's outstanding, he's brilliant, he's objective, and he's tireless. Judge Vanaskie recognizes that for many citizens, his decisions will be the final word on their claims before the court. He treats people with respect and honors their right to be heard. His deep understanding of and respect for the rule of law will serve him well in ruling on cases and authoring opinions that will be influential in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and beyond. For all these reasons and many others, I am proud to stand in support of Judge Vanaskie and urge his confirmation today. With that, I ask unanimous consent that all quorum calls during the controlled time on the Vanaskie nomination be equally divided.