Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. It is an article, so you will not be able to see it, but the headline is ``Health Tops Pennsylvania Business Woes.'' The subheadline is ``State's Small Businesses Also See the Recession as a Severe Obstacle.'' If you are a small business owner in Pennsylvania, this survey shows, you are worried about two things: the recession--no question about that having an adverse impact; that is why the recovery bill and jobs bill are so important to these small businesses--but also health care. I am reading an excerpt here: About 71 percent of the 250 businesses that responded to the survey said health care costs were their biggest challenge. Health care costs. This is not a group of Democrats sitting around a room in Pennsylvania saying: Let's pass health care. These are small business owners in Pennsylvania. They might be Democratic, Republican, Independent, or they may not have any affiliation. Their life is running a small business and raising their families, and 71 percent of those surveyed describe health insurance as their ``biggest challenge.'' We do not need any longer to debate whether this is an issue we have to deal with. I want to walk through some of the basic provisions of what we have put in place in the Senate bill, what the House has been wrestling with all these months, and what President Obama has been trying to do. Just a couple of quick highlights. First of all, if we are successful in this opportunity to pass major health care reform, other issues we have talked about for years but do not get a lot of attention are going to be finally the law of the land. Quality and prevention--the information and research on this is irrefutable. If you insist on prevention and you make it free or very low cost, that person is going to be healthier because they are going to take steps that are preventive in nature. They are going to be healthier, their family is going to be healthier, they are going to be better on the job and the economy will be stronger. But also we are going to strengthen our health care system in terms of costs. We are going to reduce costs in a lot of ways, but one of them is prevention and elevating the quality of our care. Sometimes people get the best care in the world, but in some places that can be very limited. The second point on cost and deficit. I mentioned that before. The deficit reduction in the Democratic health care bill is $130 billion over the first 10 years. We will see if the Congressional Budget Office alters that. But from what we are hearing today, some of the preliminary reports, that number might hold up. Some thought that because of the passage of time that number might go down $130 billion to $100 billion. But it is a tremendous deficit reduction over 10 and over 20 years. Protections. I talked about that before. I just want to highlight that quickly. Basic protections for American families who have health insurance coverage now, families going to work, paying their premiums, and not protected. They think they are protected because they have a policy, an agreement, and they are paying their premiums. They are doing their part. Then some insurance company bureaucrat or some other player in this marketplace comes to them and says: We know you are paying your premiums; that you are holding up your end of the bargain. But we, the insurance company, do not think you or your child should have coverage. Sorry. You are out of luck. Well, we are dealing with that in a couple of ways. First of all, it is important for people to understand what will happen now and what will happen later. If we get this bill passed, 6 months after the President would sign it into law, it would be illegal for an insurance company to deny a child coverage because of a preexisting condition. That is a tremendous change in the first year--literally, after 6 months. In that same time period and beyond that, if you are an adult, technically you would not have the legal protection because you cannot do all of this at once. So we had to decide, do we do nothing in the short term or do we at least protect children. We are protecting children in the first couple months of the bill. But even though technically an adult would not have legal protection until 2014, they will have recourse. They will have an option to say: I am an adult. I have been denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. I can go into a high-risk pool and get coverage. So there is recourse in the first--actually, that is in the first 3 months for the adult. So that is a very important protection. We can talk more later about that. Finally, and I will begin to close, on children's health insurance--I talked about that before--it is important to note what the bill does on a great successful program, the Children's Health Insurance Program. For example, in our State this is what children's health insurance has meant. It has meant that we have been able to reduce our rate of uninsured children down to 5 percent. It is still not good enough; we still want to go lower. But our uninsured rate among children in Pennsylvania is 5 percent. With regard to adults between the ages of 18 and 64, it is 12 percent, so more than double for the adult uninsured prior to getting to the age of Medicare. That is more than double the children's uninsured rate. That is good for children that we have made progress--we need to make more--but it is bad for adults who have not had a strategy to help them. That is part of why we are trying to pass the bill. At long last we are going to be helping many adults, tens of millions. The Children's Health Insurance Program is extended under the bill for 2 years, until September 30, 2015. What the President wants to do as part of the so-called reconciliation process is to maintain--he proposes to require States to maintain eligibility for children's health insurance to 2019, not just 2015, 2019. He wants to fund it through 2016. I think that is a very important change that the President has proposed and that we have a chance to ratify in our debate. There is a lot more we can talk about, but I am running low on time. But I think the basic question for the American people is, Are we going to have an up-or-down vote on health care? Some over there who have used this process before for other measures over many years seem to not want us to have an up-or-down vote on health care. I think the American people want that, even if they disagree with parts of the bill. But the real question for our Republican friends is, Will they be responsive to Trisha Urban? Are they just going to say that preexisting conditions are a problem; I know recisions are a problem, I know limits on coverage are a problem for you and your family; I know that denying a child health care coverage because of a preexisting condition is a problem, but we are not going to do anything about it; the insurance companies were too strong; we could not beat them; we are just going to go the way that so many have gone in Washington. I do not think that is going to be a good enough answer for Trisha Urban and her family and for millions of Americans. Finally, the question is, If you are not for our bill, if you are going to vote against it, what are you going to do about this? What are you going to do if you vote against covering 31 million Americans? What are you going to do? Are you going to cover three? Is that a serious proposal? If you say you care about Medicare, are you going to support--which is the Republican proposal--having vouchers for Medicare? If you say you care about deficit reduction, you are going to vote against the bill that cuts the deficit by $130 billion, and let's say that number goes down, the worst we could do is $100 billion. But the estimates might hold up in the next couple of days. We will see what the Congressional Budget Office has. So I think Republicans in the Senate and the House have to answer those basic questions, not necessarily my questions or our questions but the questions that Trisha Urban and others across our country and every single State, the millions of Americans who have been denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. Notice I said millions over the last couple of years, according to one estimate, one survey. They have some questions to answer over on the other side of the aisle. We will see what their answer is, and the answer will be the vote. How you vote on this will be one answer to all of those and many other questions. So I hope we can have some conversions on the other side; that they will see that it is important to cover Americans, it is important to provide the kind of security and protection to families who are paying their premiums every day and not being given the protections they deserve. I hope our friends do that. I hope they do not just spend all of their time debating the finer points of process in the Senate. People really do not care about what the procedure is in Washington in the Senate. They want to know are we going to have, at long last, real protections for real families, or will the insurance companies win again. This is not complicated. That is one of the basic questions they are asking us to answer for them. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I know I have less than 2 minutes, but I wanted to add a couple of things to the Record. One is an article from the Los Angeles Times of February 4 of this year, headlined ``Anthem Blue Cross Dramatically Raising Rates for Californians With Individual Health Policies.'' I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY. Basically, many Americans have heard these stories and experienced the pain of these health insurance premium increases. But I am going to read quick portions of it: Anthem Blue Cross dramatically raised rates for Californians with individual health policies. Policyholders are incensed over rate hikes of as much as 39 percent. Going on to say: Anthem Blue Cross is telling many of its approximately 800,000 customers who may buy individual coverage--people not covered by group rates--that their premiums will increase 30 to 39 percent. Finally, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a series of statements contained in a 3\1/2\-page summary entitled ``GOP on Reconciliation.'' This is a series of statements that Republican Senators have made over the years with regard to this process they are complaining about and think that we should not be able to use, even though they supported it in the past. It is interesting reading which we do not have time to highlight.

Mr. CASEY. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I thank our colleague, Senator Franken, for his remarks on this issue. I am going to be speaking just for a few moments as in morning business. I ask unanimous consent to do that.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate Nowruz, the traditional Iranian New Year, which begins with the arrival of spring on the Vernal Equinox. More than 1 million Iranian Americans in the United States as well as millions of Iranians and others around the world celebrate Nowruz, which embodies the ideals of understanding and appreciation of others. Universally, the beginning of spring is associated with rebirth. At this festive time, when Mother Nature is beginning a new cycle and families around the world are gathering to celebrate a new calendar year, I would like to appeal to the good will of the Iranian government by calling for the immediate release of Joshua Fattal, Sarah Shourd, and Shane Bauer. These three young American hikers have spent almost 8 months in confinement in Iran's Evin prison for allegedly crossing a poorly marked border. We are heartened that the Iranians recently allowed the three young Americans to call their families for the first time since their detention on July 31 last year. Still, we ask at the beginning of Persian New Year that Josh, Sarah, and Shane be released to celebrate a spring with their desperately concerned parents and other family members. Laura Fattal, mother of Josh, recently appealed to the Iranian authorities, asking for them ``to show compassion and allow our families to be reunited in joy and happiness as well.'' I would like to recognize the Senators from California and Minnesota, as well as Senator Specter, who have worked tirelessly to reunite Josh, Sarah, and Shane with their families. I hope that Supreme Leader Khamenei, in the spirit of Nowruz, will make the humanitarian gesture of immediately releasing Josh, Sarah, and Shane.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Judge Vanaskie graduated with high honors from Lycoming College and was an honorable mention All-American football player there. He attended the Dickinson School of Law in Pennsylvania, graduated with honors in 1978, was editor of the Law Review, clerked for Judge William Nealon, who was then the Chief Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Judge Vanaskie went on to have a distinguished career as a lawyer. He got to the Middle District Court, the U.S. Middle District of Pennsylvania in 1994, became the Chief Judge, just like Judge Nealon, the judge he served. Judge Vanaskie became the Middle District's Chief Judge in 1999 and his 7-year term as Chief Judge was completed in 1996. He was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to the Information Technology Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, where he served as Chair for 3 years. I will submit for the Record, as I mentioned before, what many people have said about him in addition to his record. I will read one of those at this moment. Judge Nealon, someone who has been on the District Court of Pennsylvania, the Middle District, for more than a generation, since 1962--here is what that judge said about Judge Vanaskie. He said: He is superbly qualified, he is outstanding, he is brilliant, he is objective and he is tireless. There is not much more you could say that would be higher praise than that from not only a colleague but someone who has had decades of experience presiding over complex matters in the district courts. In my own judgment, Judge Vanaskie demonstrated, when he was on the district court, the kind of legal acumen and scholarship and commitment to the rule of law that made him stand out on the district court. I know I personally have experience with that; I appeared before him. I remember in particular trying a case in front of him. He is someone I knew very well for many years, someone I had great respect for, but also someone I knew personally. Despite that personal connection, I do remember him ruling against me on a number of objections. That alone is testament to his integrity. It is widely shared. When you consider all of that legal experience, unquestioned ability on the district court, unquestioned ability to handle very complex matters that prepared him to serve on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and that he was voted out of committee close to unanimously--I think there were three votes against him. I will doublecheck this, but I think the vote was 16 to 3. I will make sure we check that for the Record. Having said all that, I cannot understand why our friends on the other side of the aisle would want to hold up someone who has such a brilliant record, who is committed to being and has already demonstrated a commitment to be a fair-minded judge, someone who will set aside their personal points of view, their personal biases, to rule on matters that come before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. It does not make much sense when you consider the support he has received. But it seems, as on so many of these nominations, the impediment here is not a set of questions, not a set of unresolved issues. The impediment is too many Senators on the other side of the aisle who want to use the nomination process to achieve political objectives. That, in my judgment, is what is happening. What they should do for the American people is set aside those political objectives and get people confirmed, just as they would hope that their nominees, people they support under a Republican President, would be confirmed. This is just one example, but I think a very telling example, of what our friends are doing when they hold up a judge who has that kind of record of service, of commitment to justice and the rule of law. I think it speaks volumes about what is happening in the Senate on nominations. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to raise questions about why the Republicans in the Senate are holding up a number of nominations. We have heard some of that articulated this morning by a number of our colleagues. I have a specific example of what this kind of obstruction leads to. It is with regard to a circuit court nomination, in this case a judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. This is someone I have known a long time, someone I have known to be not only capable to do the job a U.S. Court of Appeals judge must do, but also someone who has demonstrated his ability on the district court for many years. The person I am speaking of is Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie, who has been nominated for a position on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands. As I said, I have known him a long time. He is someone who has been a legal scholar, someone who has a long and distinguished career on the Federal bench as well as a career as an advocate when he was practicing law. I ask unanimous consent a fuller statement of his record and resume be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, thank you very much. I appreciate the many times Senator Kaufman comes to the floor to celebrate what is working in Washington and the good work that is done by so many public officials, but also public employees in our Federal Government. I rise this afternoon to talk about the recession, unemployment, job loss--all of those related topics--and in a very particular way to focus on the trauma, the suffering that a lot of Pennsylvanians and a lot of Americans are living through right now. This has been and continues to be a horrific recession for the American people. When we are confronted with that kind of economic difficulty, we need to respond to it in very bold ways. I think we have over the last couple of years and even the last couple of weeks. I will talk about that today. But we do need bold action to put people back to work and to keep our economy moving in the right direction, as I think it is now, more than a year after the recovery bill was enacted. In Pennsylvania, the unemployment situation is as follows: Our rate is at about 8.8 percent as of January. That is lower than a number of States of comparable size. But, unfortunately, the rate doesn't tell us much. It doesn't often reflect the true meaning or the true impact of unemployment. We have 560,000 people in Pennsylvania out of work through no fault of their own. I think it is also important to put this in the context of where we have been and where we are now, not only in Pennsylvania but across the country. In late December of 2008, Congress took action to stave off the impending collapse of our Nation's financial system. Months later, the downturn required Congress to pass, as I mentioned before, the recovery bill known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, known by the acronym ARRA. I tend to refer to it as the recovery bill. These actions were at the time--meaning the legislative actions-- unpopular but absolutely necessary. I said we have worked on job creation strategies and legislation more recently within the last couple of weeks. Our majority leader Senator Reid has led us in that, and we are making progress. We have more to do. First, let me go back in time a little bit to the fall of 2008. At that time I happened to be a member of the Banking Committee. We were given briefings at that time on how perilous our financial system was; that we were on the edge of a cliff in terms of the collapse of our financial system and, therefore, the collapse of our economy. We passed legislation which included the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known by the acronym TARP. I know as soon as I say it, it doesn't bring back positive recollections for people. It was not popular. Even the bill itself was not that popular--the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act--and part of that was the so called Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP. But I think it is important to put the facts on the table about what has happened since that time. The Troubled Asset Relief Program was, indeed, unpopular, but we should note that to date the Treasury Department has spent, invested, or loaned $500 billion through TARP. To date, almost $190 billion of the $500 billion has been returned or paid to the Treasury Department. These actions helped steer the economy back from the brink and, by the program's conclusion, we expect all but $100 billion of that $500 billion to be repaid, which makes the Troubled Asset Relief Program significantly less expensive to taxpayers than earlier estimates. It met some of the predictions at the time by some of us that the money would be paid back. So that is good news. It is not enough, though, to report on good news. We had to take other action. We took action when we passed the recovery bill in the early part of 2009. Just by way of example, Pennsylvania is on track to receive more than $26 billion through the recovery bill, including billions in direct tax relief. We had 4.9 million Pennsylvanians who got tax relief as part of the recovery bill. Among, or part of, I should say, that more than $26 billion, $13.15 billion was in so-called formula-driven funding for health, education, infrastructure, job training, and other aid. It was a tremendous boost to the economy in Pennsylvania, not only creating jobs but preventing the erosion of our job creation strategies and preventing people from being laid off, including teachers in school districts, law enforcement officials, as well as in jump-starting the economy of Pennsylvania. We still have a ways to go. We still have basically another year of a jump-starting effect for the recovery bill. Across the country, when we measure the impact of the recovery bill, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which is known by the acronym CBO--we hear about it all the time, but they are a referee in a sense in Washington, an arbiter of what the numbers mean. The CBO reported a few weeks ago that the Recovery Act added between 1 million and 2.1 million jobs by the fourth quarter of 2009. Again, impressive, halfway basically--or almost, I should say, halfway through the recovery bill's implementation at the end of 2009, 1 million to 2 million jobs. The CBO also said the Recovery Act raised economic growth by 1.5 percent to 3.5 percent over that same period. So it has contributed to growth. The CBO Director, Doug Elmendorf, said during a recent Joint Economic hearing: [T]he policies that were enacted in the bill are increasing GDP and employment relative to what it otherwise would be. So that is the CBO talking about the recovery bill as another way to measure. There are lots of ways to measure the impact and, I would argue, the success of it. In January of 2009 the country lost 1.2 million jobs. Job loss, as of the most recent report for February, was a little more than 60,000 jobs, just about 62,000 jobs. So that reduction or diminution in the number of jobs lost from 1.5 million jobs to 62,000 jobs is, indeed, substantial progress but, again, it is not enough. We have to keep going. We have to keep putting in place strategies to create many more jobs. The facts speak for themselves. More people are currently employed and more goods and services are being produced as a result of the Recovery Act. Put another way, if the Recovery Act had not been enacted, the economic situation would be much worse than it is today. That is an understatement, if we did not pass that legislation. But we need to do more and move forward. We need to pass legislation to continue to create jobs. That is why I am standing today in support of passage of the American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act, the legislation we are now considering. This legislation contains vital policies that will support our workers and our businesses as we recover from the recent economic recession. The most important part of the legislation is the extension of unemployment insurance and COBRA health insurance through December 31 of this year. The national unemployment rate is 9.7 percent. It is expected to remain at this level, unfortunately, through most of 2010. I mentioned earlier that in Pennsylvania it is about a point lower, 8.8 percent. There are 560,000 Pennsylvanians who are out of work. These numbers are far too high for us to in any way be satisfied with the positive impact the recovery bill has had and other measures we have taken. We are about to pass and enact into law the HIRE Act--four provisions agreed to in a bipartisan way. We have to do more than that as well. Congress must continue to provide for comprehensive unemployment benefits and a subsidy to pay for COBRA health insurance for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. The eligibility for emergency unemployment compensation and COBRA premium assistance will expire at the end of March. According to our State's department of labor and industry, hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvania workers could lose unemployment benefits over the next several months without an extension. An extension of federally funded unemployment compensation and the COBRA health insurance subsidy through the end of this year, December 31, is necessary for several reasons. First, State labor departments-- and this is true across the board--will now be under pressure to constantly update their systems and inform constituents of the changes in Federal law. Why should we keep passing an extension of a month or two or three when we could pass legislation to give certainty, most importantly to that unemployed worker and his or her family--they are the most important part of this story--but also to State labor departments and other officials in departments so they do not have to continue to make changes to their system. People who were recently laid off will constantly be reminded that their unemployment benefits may run out sooner than expected, especially at a time when there are six applicants for every one job. Second, our State labor department makes a point that at a time when millions of people do not have health care coverage, failure to provide an adequate safety net to ensure people maintain adequate and affordable health coverage will only add to the rolls of the uninsured in the country. During my travels throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I have met and I will continue to meet or hear from numerous people who are in desperate need of help. Recently, the Hanlon family of Pleasantville, PA, contacted my office to share their story. Here is but one story, but it is very telling about what families are up against. Lisa and Jeff Hanlon have four young children. Until recently, Jeff and Lisa were both employed by the same company and, in their words, ``the family lived a solid middle-class experience.'' Jeff worked at the company for nearly 8 years. Over time, he began to experience severe health problems, including suffering three heart attacks. When the economic downturn hit, Jeff was downsized by the company and the family lost their health insurance. The blow of losing health insurance could not have come at a worse time. Just one of Jeff's hospital bills was $398,000. Due to his medical condition, Jeff was unable to work. Too sick to work, it took a long time for Jeff to apply for and receive Social Security. During this time, the family experienced severe hardship and sold everything of value to keep their home and stay afloat. Mrs. Hanlon told our office that their children went without medical help for a year--young children going without medical help for a year because their father or mother loses a job. That is unacceptable. We should act on the statement ``that is unacceptable in America today.'' What the Hanlons had to do was choose what bills to pay to feed their children. Without means, the children were not able to participate in sports or any school activities. Even now, the family's current income is a fraction of what it was. Another example, in addition to the Hanlons, is Janet Lee Smith, a single mother of two girls. Her difficulties began back in 2003 when she was laid off from a 26-year career. As Janet tells the story, the company began outsourcing to Mexico, which made her position obsolete. Faced with the tremendous responsibility of raising two young girls, she decided to go back to school while still working. In 2005, she graduated from a Penn State extension campus with an associate's degree in human development and family studies. Unfortunately, additional education was not enough to get her a job in this tough economic climate. So once again, Janet turned to odd jobs and part-time jobs until 2008, when she was finally blessed with a full-time job as an administrative assistant. Nine months later, once again she was told that business was slow and she would, in her words, ``once again become a statistic as a `dislocated worker.''' Today, unable to find full-time work, Janet is back in school and working part time. She says she feels she has to do whatever she can ``to get her girls through school healthy and strong.'' In Janet's words: It is not a good feeling at all being told that you are going to be laid off, especially when you are the only income that your family depends on. It has been a struggle keeping up my spirits and trying not to let my girls see that I am stressed. That is what Janet tells us, and that is what the Hanlon family tells us. Despite these challenges--and I have seen this across our State-- despite these challenges, Janet is still optimistic. She says: I am confident that this time I will be able to find that one job. I know that they are out there. I had a good job before and I will have a good job again. I heard this in many instances across our State. I was at a job center in south central Pennsylvania, just outside Gettysburg. I met with 8 of those 560,000 people who are out of work. I heard the same thing there. Eight Pennsylvanians--at least six were over the age of 50 and the others were over the age of 60--had never been out of work in their lives, never had to rely on food stamps, and almost in every case never had to rely on unemployment insurance. And they find themselves in this predicament. Despite that, there is a burning flame of optimism inside them. Despite their setbacks, they are willing to keep filling out forms, keep applying, keeping their heads up, and keep moving forward. Debbie, a woman, who was one of those eight I spoke to that day, probably said it best--simply: All I want to do is get back to work. We see that across the board. What are we going to do in Congress? Are we going to preach? We will only have unemployment for another couple weeks or a few months. We are only going to have COBRA insurance for a couple of weeks, a couple of months. It is easy for us to say when we have health care, Federal employees that we are, and we have job security. For those who say we should not do it, we should not extend these safety net programs, before they make a speech about it, they should tell their constituents about why they do not want to support it. Tell Janet Smith and tell the Hanlon family why it is not a good idea to support unemployment insurance and COBRA health insurance. The security of Washington allows a lot of people to avoid that conversation. The security of being a Federal employee, of being a Senator or a House Member and having health coverage and job security allows us the luxury of not having to look those families in the eye and tell them. I think if people were more honest about it around here, they would. In addition to aiding families who are desperately in need of putting food on the table and a roof over their heads, an extension of the unemployment insurance has a direct impact on our Nation's economy. We know, for example, that again the Congressional Budget Office says that for every $1 spent in unemployment insurance benefits, upwards of $1.90 is contributed to the gross domestic product. Mark Zandi, an economist I have quoted often, a Pennsylvanian--a little bias there, but he also worked on Senator McCain's Presidential campaign, so he is not someone coming from a purely Democratic point of view--Mark Zandi has stated that for every $1 spent in unemployment insurance benefits, upwards of $1.63 is contributed to the gross domestic product. If you spend a buck on unemployment insurance, the taxpayers get $1.63 back in return. In addition to unemployment insurance and COBRA health insurance, the American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act provides a range of tax credits that will help businesses and State governments to create and retain jobs. For example, the bill contains an extension of the biodiesel fuel credit, which will put a number of Pennsylvanians back to work across the country. The bill contains a research and development tax credit that will provide businesses with financial resources to compete in a global marketplace. Finally, the bill will assist our teachers by providing a tax deduction for those teachers who spend their own money to buy supplies for their classrooms and students--something I have seen in Pennsylvania for many years, teachers constantly reaching into their own pockets to buy supplies and equipment they need for them to teach our children. I say in conclusion, I and I know many others strongly support passage of the American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act. This legislation is necessary to continue to spur economic growth and create jobs in Pennsylvania and across our country. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the ongoing imprisonment of three young Americans--Joshua Fattal from Pennsylvania and two other Americans who have been in prison in Iran with him, Sarah Shourd and Shane Bauer. These are three Americans who have now spent more than 7 months in solitary confinement in Iran's Evin Prison for allegedly crossing a poorly marked border, the border between Iran and Iraq. Since their detention along the Iran-Iraq border on July 31, 2009, the Iranian Government has refused requests from their attorney for visits. The Government of Iran has delayed due process and rejected requests from family members to call or visit them. The Iranian regime has also delayed requests for Iranian visas for the families and stonewalled the Swiss Embassy's attempt to carry out diplomatic visits. The longer the detainment of these young Americans continues, the more clear it becomes to the international community that the Iranian Government, the Iranian regime, is engaged in political games rather than seeking to grant them a fair and timely judicial process. On this basis, I request that Supreme Leader Khamenei, President Ahmadinejad, Judiciary Chief Larijani, and other Iranian officials make the humane and just decision to release Josh, Sarah, and Shane immediately. Keeping these three innocent Americans in prison without due process violates the international human rights standards as well as Iran's own laws. It has been more than 2 months since Foreign Minister Motaki claimed they would be tried in court. Yet no trial date has been set. According to Iranian law, no detainee can be held temporarily for more than 4 months; thus, judiciary officials must either schedule a court hearing or set the three young Americans free. The only conclusion the international community can draw from the Iranian Government's words and actions is that they intend to keep these three young Americans in limbo for domestic or foreign policy aims. It has nothing to do with the actions or intentions of these three American tourists who were simply admiring the natural beauty of the Kurdish mountains near the Iran-Iraq border. The world is a much worse off place when idealism, especially held by innocent young people, is squashed by cynical politics. Among ancient Persia's greatest legacies is a transparent and efficient justice system. Innocent people do not appear on the court docket. We ask the Iranian Government--we ask them to send the world the unambiguous message that transparent, timely, and fair judicial processes remain a cornerstone of Iranian civilization. Keeping Josh, Sarah, and Shane indefinitely in solitary confinement and without access to legal counsel or their families is unjust and is sure to color the visions of Iranian society for young people the world over. Do not make Josh, Sarah, Shane, and their desperately concerned parents wait another day before being reunited. Supreme Leader Khamenei, release these young hikers now. Unemployment Madam President, in addition to those remarks about those young Americans, I want to talk for a few minutes about unemployment and what is happening, certainly across the country but in particular in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We have 560,000 people out of work right now in Pennsylvania. Our rate is lower than a lot of places, but we still have that many people out of work, a very high number--maybe not historic but close to a historically high number, 560,000 Pennsylvanians. There are lots of ways to try to understand what people are going through and try to get a sense of what people are living through. I had a chance a couple of weeks ago to sit with 8 of those 560,000 people in what is called a career link, a job center in Pennsylvania where people are filling out scores of applications, applying for jobs. In the case of these eight individuals, they are all over the age of 50 and many are over the age of 60 and 70--some of the worst situations for those who are in that age bracket, who worked for years, 20, 30 years at one job and did it very well, and now, through no fault of their own, are out of work. Listening to their stories gave me a better insight into what people are up against every day. A number of comments were significant and relevant and poignant, but one in particular by a woman by the name of Debi who said something very simple but telling about what is in her heart and what she is living through--she said simply: We just want to get back to work. That is a very simple statement, but I think that is on the minds of a lot of Americans who are out of work, and their family members. They just want to get back to work. They also want to see that Washington is not just legislating--that is obviously important, and I will talk a little bit more about that in a moment--but that we are trying to understand what they are up against. They do want to get back to work. It is that simple. One of the ways we can do that is by making sure those who are out of work, those something like 15 million Americans out of work through no fault of their own, that we do something to help them in the next couple of days to get through the next couple of weeks, literally, with unemployment insurance, COBRA health insurance, and so many other ways. We should note that the eligibility for emergency unemployment compensation and for COBRA--known as COBRA premium assistance, really health insurance for the unemployed--that both of those will expire this Sunday, February 28. If an extension of the unemployment programs authorized by the Recovery Act is not passed, 1.2 million workers will lose their unemployment benefits by the end of March. So we have to act now to prevent that from happening. It is unfortunate that it seems there is only an agreement to keep extending it from December to February, then from February into March or the end of March. We should extend it a lot further than that. Maybe we will have an opportunity to do that. But, at a minimum, we have to make sure unemployment insurance is extended and COBRA health insurance is extended. There are other reasons to do that as well. The most important reason is the people who will be positively impacted by those actions. An extension of the federally funded unemployment compensation and COBRA programs through December 31, 2010--what we should do is extend it that far. They are necessary for a number of reasons. State labor departments will not be under pressure to constantly update their systems and inform constituents of changes in national law. We should give them the kind of certainty and predictability that they have a right to expect, certainly the State government officials but more importantly, the families and affected persons who are recently laid off--not constantly be reminded that their unemployment benefits may run out sooner than expected. This is especially true at a time when there are six applicants for every one job. It is important to take action on unemployment insurance and COBRA health insurance coverage for a third reason as well. At a time when millions of people don't have health care coverage, failure to provide an adequate safety net to ensure people have affordable health insurance coverage will only add to the rolls of the uninsured in the midst of this debate on health care. Two other points before I conclude. According to the CBO, which we keep quoting in the health care debate and in many others, for every $1 spent on unemployment insurance benefits, up to $1.90 is contributed to the gross national product. This is further evidence, in addition to what I and many others have quoted--Mark Sandy from moodys.com--you spend a buck on unemployment insurance or COBRA benefits and/or food stamps, all of those safety net provisions to help workers who lost their job, you not only help someone who needs help and should have the help we can provide, you also help our economy literally by jump starting spending. We know that in the past couple of days we passed the jobs bill, the HIRE Act, a good piece of legislation for small business, for economic vitality but also for preserving and creating lots of jobs. That jobs bill is not enough. We have to pass these safety net provisions on unemployment and COBRA health benefits. We also have to put more job creation strategies on the table and get bills passed to create more jobs. The recovery bill is still having an effect, still having a tremendous impact in Pennsylvania, with still a whole year left of spending and benefits of that spending in Pennsylvania and other States. I see Senator Specter is with us. He and I have seen that up close in Pennsylvania, a tremendous impact already, but there is still more to do on the recovery bill he voted for under great pressure not to vote for it. Thank goodness he did. Without his vote, that bill would not have passed. Millions of Americans' lives would be adversely impacted if we did not pass the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. We have a long way to go, more work to do across the country and to have a positive impact on Pennsylvania. One concluding thought. When you look at Pennsylvania, we might have a lower rate than a lot of States but we do have 560,000 people out of work. Unfortunately, more and more we are seeing in different labor markets, such as the Erie labor market, which is at 10 percent, the Lehigh Valley, Allentown, Bethlehem, and Easton at 9.8 percent, northeastern Pennsylvania, my home area, at 9.7 percent--even though our rate has not yet hit statewide 9 percent, we are seeing in different pockets that number going up. We have to continue to put job creation strategies in the pipeline, continue to have the recovery act have an even more positive impact. And thirdly, we need to make sure we pass the safety net provisions. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan.) Without objection, it is so ordered. American Hikers Held in Iran

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, today, the Senate will resume consideration of the House message with respect to H.R. 1299, the legislative vehicle for the Travel Promotion Act. Yesterday, the majority leader filed cloture on the motion to concur. That vote will occur tomorrow morning, unless we are able to reach an agreement to vote today. In addition, we are also working on an agreement to consider a bill that would extend certain expiring tax provisions for 30 days. If we are able to reach an agreement, we could see votes on that after 4 p.m. There will be no rollcall votes prior to 4 p.m. to allow Senators to attend the health care summit with the President of the United States.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I don't know if the Senator has seen this, but this is the National Employment Law Project, February 2010. One of the columns highlights the total number of individuals exhausting their unemployment benefits in the month of March. I don't know if the Senator from Illinois quoted this number earlier. I don't think he did. But the total for the month of March in Illinois would be 65,431 people. In my State of Pennsylvania, the total would be not quite that high but 62,599 people. That leads me to my second question. I had the opportunity a couple weeks ago to sit with 8 of the 560,000 people in my State who are out of work. In Pennsylvania, that 560,000 adds up to 8.9 percent of the workforce, but it is an incredibly high number--maybe not a record but very close. Those eight individuals were like every one of the people in this country who has lost their job, not through anything they did. Through no fault of their own, they are out of work. I would ask the Senator from Illinois about what he has seen and heard from individuals he has sat down with in Illinois who have lost their jobs and are going to job centers and places such as that to fill out unemployment forms, fill out job applications. I would ask you about that. (Mr. MERKLEY assumed the Chair.)

Mr. CASEY. Let me add that the reference to the Congressional Budget Office--that has been the referee or the arbiter of what is used as a number for health care, what protections are for spending--I heard the summary of that same report on the House side at a Joint Economic Committee meeting. But the reference I made earlier is a very similar analysis made by Mark Zandi. Mark Zandi is an economist from moodys.com. He happened to be an adviser to John McCain's Presidential campaign, so he is not some partisan in this debate. But he said, going back a year ago, when we were debating the recovery bill--whether to enact it or not--he said that if you spend $1 on unemployment insurance, you get I think it is more than $1.60 back, somewhere in the $1.60 to $1.70 range. So this is not only a question of how we help people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own; the secondary benefit here is it can help people who are out of work and need a stimulated economy, need an economy that is jump-started by the spending we would provide through unemployment insurance. So it makes no sense. As the Senator from Illinois said earlier, there are lots of ways to make the argument that our friend from Kentucky is making, but this is not the time or the place, when all we are talking about is a 30-day extension of unemployment insurance for people who, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs. It makes no sense. And as I look at these numbers in Pennsylvania of 62,599 people losing or will lose, if he prevails, their unemployment insurance in the month of March, it makes no sense.

Mr. CASEY. The ones I have met in that--they call it a career link, a job center--of those eight individuals, all but one--but maybe even the one--of those eight people were in their fifties, sixties, or seventies. In most instances--probably five out of the eight, maybe six out of the eight--they had never lost their job before; they had never had to depend upon unemployment insurance, food stamps, any kind of help. In fact, one woman said she felt ashamed that she had to apply for food stamps. She had never had to be that reliant on anything. Another woman by the name of Debbie said to me: We just want to get back to work. We don't want to be in this condition. We want to get back to work. So there was no complaining. But I want to ask the Senator, as well, you referred earlier to another part of this discussion, which is that we focus on those who need this unemployment insurance--and we are talking here just about a 30-day extension; we are not talking about providing this for years or a long period of time--but the Senator talked about the economic impact of the spending of these dollars. I do not know if the Senator is familiar with what Mark Zandi, the economist, talked about. I do not know if the Senator is familiar with that. Let me just ask the Senator that.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Gettysburg Coin Act, which I was proud to introduce with Senator Specter. This legislation commemorates one of the most significant events in our Nation's history. The Gettysburg Coin Act would produce a commemorative coin in 2013 recognizing the 150th anniversary of the 1863 Battle of Gettysburg and President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. The Battle of Gettysburg not only marked a decisive moment in the American Civil War, but proved to be the turning point in our Nation's history. More Americans perished during the Battle of Gettysburg than in any other battle in American history. It is with this understanding that we must, as President Abraham Lincoln so eloquently said in the Gettysburg Address, ``highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain'' in defending our Nation's freedom. This rings true today as our Nation's servicemen and women continue the long tradition of protecting our freedom and values. Today, I would also like to recognize the important work of the Army Heritage Center Foundation, which continues the proud tradition of protecting and preserving our Nation's rich military history. Based in Carlisle, PA, the U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center works with the U.S. Army to preserve the memories of soldiers and their families, honor their service, and help educate the American public about the Army's contributions to our nation. The center's world class archives store a collection of Army memorabilia and artifacts, so we can remember how life was lived and the repercussions of war. The Army Heritage Center Foundation's support for the 150th anniversary commemorative coin is just another way they continue to fulfill their mission. As a Pennsylvanian, I am proud of the role my State has played and continues to play in shaping our Nation's history. It is my hope that these coins will commemorate a day of great national pride and remind us of the sacrifices that generations of American soldiers and their families have made to safeguard this Nation. Therefore, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise for two purposes this morning. The first is to speak about a native of Scranton, PA, who died serving our country in Afghanistan. LCpl Larry M. Johnson, just 19 years old, lost his life in the service to his country in the last couple of days. He becomes for Pennsylvania the 43rd soldier killed in action in Afghanistan, with an additional 191 Pennsylvanians who have been wounded at last count. When we lose one of our brave young soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere around the world, we have a lot to say about their sacrifice and their service. I often, as we all do at one time or another, quote Abraham Lincoln: ``These Americans gave the last full measure of devotion to their country.'' No one said it better than Lincoln. He captured the essence of their service and the sense of loss we all feel when someone who is serving their country is lost in combat. LCpl Larry Johnson's duties were the following: He was the combat engineer. His main responsibility was to combat and detect improvised explosive devices, and we know them by the acronym IEDs. He lost his life doing that work. Just 19 years old, he was a graduate of Scranton High School in 2008. In instances such as this, probably the best testimony about the soldier's life, their commitment to their country and the sacrifice they made, probably the best testament of all of those subjects comes from members of their family. In this case, there was testimony in news articles over the last couple of days from friends and teachers, but, of course, most poignantly and most movingly from Larry Johnson's family. Yesterday in the Scranton Time-Tribune there was an article among several over the course of a couple of days, but this article in particular focused on Larry Johnson's family. I unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two stories, one entitled ``Teacher Recalls Scranton Marine's `Really Good Heart.' '' That is the name of the first story. That is February 21. The second story I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record is entitled ``Knock at the Door Brought Tragedy Home for Marine's Kin.'' That is from Borys Krawczeniuk, February 22.

Mr. CASEY. The one that focused on his family begins with this line, speaking of Larry Johnson's family: Johanna Johnson thought she would die first, not any of her four kids. This is what Larry's mom is quoted as saying in the second line of the story: You're not supposed to bury your son. Your son is supposed to bury you. It isn't supposed to be this way. The story went on to talk about what Larry's hopes and dreams were, not only for himself but for his own mother. The story says that Larry Johnson ``loved his mom so much that he always promised he would some day make sure she no longer had to work. He would buy her a double- block home in California, and she would live on one side and live off the rent from the other half.'' That was a soldier's dream for his mother--just 19 years old and not only thinking about the rest of his life, not only volunteering to serve his country in the Marine Corps and going to Afghanistan, but to have a dream--a dream for his mother's future that he hoped to bring to fruition. Larry Johnson's sister Ashley is 21 years old, just 2 years older than Larry. She talked about the knock at the door that no family, no mother or father, no brother or sister--no loved one--ever wants to be present for. But Ashley heard the knock at the door. It was a hard knock at the door, she remembered. The one marine who was at the door asked, ``Is your mom home?'' This is what Ashley said after that. She went to turn away, and she asked herself: Wait, did something happen to my brother? He never actually said--the marine at the door--that Larry Michael Johnson was dead, but Ashley said the following: I just knew. I saw the look on their face that he was dead. I didn't even have to ask the question. The story goes on to talk about Larry's father, by the same name-- Larry--who was an Army veteran who served his country as well. It is talking about how his father prepared him to go into the Marine Corps once Larry made the decision to become a marine. Then the story ends with a couple of references to, again, Larry's mom--the one he had a dream for, the one he wanted to build a house in California for someday in the future. The story says: At Christmas, he sent his mother a deep fryer and a crock pot that he bought online from WalMart. He wanted to send that to her. It says: On patrol, he would sometimes call [his mother] via a satellite phone, sometimes when he should not have. But, again, he loved his mother. Johanna Johnson is quoted toward the end of the story: He'd be out on a mission and he would call me. He always worried about his mother. There is really not a lot more I could say about his life and his sacrifice than what was contained in this story about what it means to serve, what it means to give, as I said before, in Lincoln's words, ``the last full measure of devotion to your country.'' But we know that when these lives are lost, it is not just about service, it is not just about combat and the military or the Marine Corps. All of that is relevant and critically important, but in the end these stories are about families, about mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters. For those who have loved and lost, we do our best to try to understand, but we can never fully understand what Johanna Johnson and her family are living through these last few days and will live with the rest of their lives. They will be able to manage that loss. They will be able to move on. But they will never be fully recovered from that kind of a loss. We are thinking of Larry Johnson and his family today. We are praying for them. We want him and his family to know, in our own small way, how much we appreciate his sacrifice. Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to express support for the Obama administration's efforts on nuclear nonproliferation. We know-- and I believe this is a consensus in our country--that nuclear terrorism poses the most serious threat to our security, as well as the security of other nations around the world. I believe we have a solemn responsibility to do what we can to combat the threat of nuclear weapons. The Obama administration has set forth a vision which puts American security first in pursuit of a world where terrorists cannot acquire weapons of mass destruction. The Senate also has an important leadership role to play. Our No. 1 obligation should be to protect the American people. In Prague last April, President Obama described the steps the United States is prepared to take toward a world without nuclear weapons. In expressing this goal, the President acknowledged the necessity of maintaining our weapons complex while simultaneously working to negotiate agreements that decrease the number of nuclear weapons in the world. He said: Make no mistake, as long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure, and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies . . . but we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal. This January, a bipartisan group of American national security leaders came together to help guide our thinking on these important issues. Former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, former National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and former Senator Sam Nunn all have stellar national security experience and credentials. They wrote together: Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also an historic opportunity. U.S. leadership will be required to take the world to the next stage--to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world. President Obama is willing and able to provide this leadership at this critical point in history. The administration is in the final stages of negotiating START with Russia. This treaty would reduce deployed nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia and would provide crucial verification measures that would allow a window into the Russian nuclear program. While the Treaty has taken a little longer than expected to complete, I applaud Assistant Secretary for Verification, Compliance and Implementation, Rose Gottemoeller, for her leadership and her efforts to pursue a strong agreement as opposed to an immediate agreement. A new START agreement is in our national security interest, especially in terms of maintaining verification and transparency measures. Once completed, this agreement can help to strengthen the U.S.-Russian relationship and potentially increase the possibility of Russian cooperation on an array of thorny international issues, including North Korea and Iran. The START follow-on treaty is also a clear demonstration that the United States is upholding our disarmament obligation under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, one of the treaty's three pillars, in addition to nonproliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. START is a necessary step in reaffirming U.S. leadership on nonproliferation issues. Without a clear commitment to our nonproliferation responsibilities through a new START agreement, it will be increasingly difficult for the United States to secure international support in addressing the urgent security threats posed by the spread of nuclear weapons. An essential element of securing our nuclear weapons complex begins at home. Last Thursday, Vice President Biden spoke at the National Defense University about the administration's efforts to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Vice President's speech.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, the Vice President said that recent years have seen a slow but steady decline in support for our nuclear stockpile and infrastructure and for our highly trained nuclear workforce. The four national security statesmen I previously referred to agree. In January, all four of these experts wrote: These investments are urgently needed to undo the adverse consequences of deep reductions over the past 5 years in the laboratories' budgets for the science, technology and engineering programs that support and underwrite the Nation's nuclear deterrent. We know that JASON, an independent defense advisory group of senior scientists, has also echoed these same concerns in a recent study. The JASON group found that the lifetimes of today's warheads could be extended for decades. That was the good news. While the weapons are in good shape, JASON is concerned that maintenance of the stockpile relies on the ``renewal of expertise and capabilities in science, technology, engineering, and production unique to the nuclear weapons program'' and that this expertise was ``threatened by lack of program stability, perceived lack of mission importance, and degradation of the work environment.'' The Obama administration's budget request reflects these concerns. The fiscal year 2011 budget request devotes $7 billion to maintaining our nuclear weapons stockpile and complex and for related efforts. Delivering on promises made in Prague and elsewhere, this administration has demonstrated a clear commitment to a nuclear nonproliferation strategy that is an integral part of our security and that of our allies. As Under Secretary of State for Arms Control in International Security, Ellen Tauscher, a former Member of the House, said recently: Nuclear disarmament is not the Holy Grail. As long as we see the rise of nuclear weapons in other countries, we will maintain deterrence that is second to none. This approach by Ellen Tauscher is smart, strategic, and measured, and it puts American security first. As I stand in support of full funding for the administration's nuclear weapons stockpile and complex request, I believe it is very important that we stand together--all of us, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Key dimensions of our nuclear stockpile are the nuclear labs and resident scientific expertise. We need to be able to continue to recruit the most highly qualified and motivated experts tasked with stockpile maintenance. Our three National Laboratories--Lawrence Livermore in California, Los Alamos in New Mexico, and Sandia in New Mexico and California--are staffed by gifted public servants who have established methods for verifying the safety, security, and reliability of our stockpile. This budget presented by the administration will help to ensure that the most talented scientists continue to be attracted to our labs and that these labs continue to be state of the art. The administration's 2011 budget request also bolsters the case for eventual ratification of the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty. A full investment in our nuclear weapons infrastructure will mean the United States can continue to maintain its nuclear weapons infrastructure without testing. We have not tested a nuclear weapon since 1992 because we now have the technical means to ensure the reliability and safety of our stockpile without testing. This is an issue of national security and preventing nuclear terrorism. By working to diminish access to fissile material, by working to ensure Russia and the United States decrease nuclear stockpiles, and by promoting a ban on nuclear testing and by ensuring our nuclear arsenal is safe and secure--all of these measures, as well as others--will help to create an international environment where a terrorist's access to fissile material is diminished. I should mention as well the work of Senator Lugar. Senator Lugar has been a remarkable leader in regard to promoting the Nunn-Lugar program all these years. I agree with Senator Lugar's efforts to secure more funding as the mandate of the program is expanded without commensurate resources. Senator Lugar reports that the program ``has eliminated more nuclear weapons than the combined nuclear arsenals of France, China, and the United Kingdom for less than $3 billion--a striking return on investment.'' I have to agree that is a striking return, indeed. Finally, I also express support for the administration's requested increase in funding for the International Atomic Energy Agency, which we all know by the acronym IAEA. For too the long, the IAEA's technical assistance and cooperation programs have been underfunded. International nonproliferation efforts face an uncertain future. Iran and North Korea are our primary concerns, but potential nuclear flashpoints remain between India and Pakistan, and the security of fissile material, while improving, remains a vital concern. In order for the IAEA to be best positioned to confront proliferation efforts in North Korea and Iran, as well as monitor the peaceful nuclear energy programs in countries around the world, its budget needs to reflect this growing portfolio. U.S. leadership in nonproliferation is essential. A fully funded IAEA will complement U.S. efforts to combat proliferation at this critical time. These investments in our national security are substantial, but there is no greater threat than that of nuclear terrorism. We must remain vigilant in doing everything we can to ensure terrorists do not get their hands on weapons of mass destruction. The nonproliferation measures mentioned above all help to address this threat. To keep America safe, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents must work together--let me say that again--must work together to promote nonproliferation and confront nuclear terror by ensuring that our existing nuclear arsenal is safe, secure, and effective. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Casey pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 418 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

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