Bob Casey

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 wish to recognize the contributions of the 56th Stryker Brigade which recently returned to homes and families across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. For 9 months the 56th Stryker Brigade has been deployed in Iraq. Here these civilian soldiers, known as the Independence Brigade, worked side by side with Iraqi counterparts to continue to bring stability and security to the Iraqi people. On the front lines they patrolled neighborhoods, targeted insurgents, and swept for improvised explosive devices. They performed more than 800 combined operations, captured 7 brigade-level, high-value targets, and discovered more than 80 enemy weapons caches. Any success we have had in Iraq is not only the result of military achievements. In this regard, it is equally important to recognize the $22 million in reconstruction efforts the 56th Stryker Brigade assisted with in coordination with an embedded U.S. provincial reconstruction team. While these young men and women are now home, we must also remember those who fell in battle. Two members of the 56th gave, as Lincoln said so long ago, ``the last full measure of devotion'' to their country. SPC Chad Edmundson of Williamsburg was killed by an IED, and SSGT Mark Baum of Quakertown was killed by enemy small arms fire. To these soldiers' families and friends, I express our condolences and gratitude on behalf of the people of Pennsylvania for their sacrifice. Please know that our prayers are with you and that we will never take for granted their personal courage and sacrifice. We pray for Chad and Mark, and we also pray for ourselves, that we may be worthy of their valor. While deployed, many things have changed for these members of the Pennsylvania National Guard. Some members met their sons and daughters for the first time. For all our troops, a time of readjustment and reintegration back into their communities and daily lives lies ahead. I want the National Guard to know I will always be committed to helping them during this battle. I know there are other guard members who bear scars from battle, whether visible or not. The Senate must ensure our citizen soldiers' jobs are maintained while they are deployed, and we must provide opportunities for them to find employment upon their return. For this reason, I will continue to urge colleagues to take up and adopt the Service Members Access to Justice Act and the FORCE Act which will make National Guard assistance programs more effective and responsive and ensure that National Guard troops keep their jobs and employment benefits as required under law. Again, I express my appreciation to the 56th Stryker Brigade and all of the men and women in service.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I think it stands to reason if you have, as we do in a lot of States, one or two or a very small number of insurance companies that dominate the marketplace, sometimes a lot more than 50 percent of the marketplace but in other cases--in our State we have two that have control over at least half of the marketplace. That alone is bad enough.

Mr. CASEY. I will give you an example. In our State, just in terms of age categories, we have, in terms of children up to the age of 18--we have a 5-percent uninsured rate. It is still too high. Until it gets to zero, we have not done enough, but that number is way down. So we have a diminishing number of children who are uninsured largely because of efforts and initiatives such as the Children's Health Insurance Program. Then, on the other end, those who are over the age of 65, they have Medicare. Where I am getting the real-life stories from people, people who send e-mails to our office just like to Senator Whitehouse, or people who do it the old-fashioned way, who actually write a letter or people you see in a public forum or on the street--they are coming to us in that age category, 19 to 64. In our State, that number of uninsured is 12 percent, more than double the number of uninsured children. For example, I got a letter in February from Trisha Urban from the eastern end of our State near Reading in Berks County. Here was her story in summary. She was working; her husband was working. But he was trying to advance, as we always tell people we want them to get more education. So he was trying to finish his doctorate. In order to finish that he had to take an internship. The internship did not have health insurance coverage. The coverage they had, ultimately they lost. Here is Trisha Urban who was working, and her husband was working as well. She was working four different jobs. They lost coverage and then they started to run up bills. Then she became pregnant. While she was pregnant, her husband, who had a heart problem, missed an appointment because they were worried about paying for the doctor visit for her pregnancy and also worried about the doctor visit for his heart ailment. So he skipped his appointment because of his heart problems. Time goes by, a couple of weeks go by, and all of a sudden her water broke. She was preparing to go to the hospital in a couple of hours, her husband went out and did a few errands, came back to the house, and as she was walking out of the house to go into the driveway to join him in the car to go to the hospital to deliver her baby, she looked in the driveway, and her husband is on the pavement of the driveway dead because of his heart condition, a preexisting condition which, thank God, in our bill, in the first section of our bill, we make illegal. It should have been illegal a long time ago. I still find it hard to believe that we live in a country where we have allowed insurance companies to do that to people. She went out and found her husband dead. An ambulance came to take her to the hospital to deliver her baby, and the other ambulance came to pick up her husband. That is the kind of story we hear in Pennsylvania and across the country because of our system. There is no reason we should tolerate this and let it go on any longer. We have a chance to change it. One of the ways to move it forward is by making sure we have choices and competition in a public option.

Mr. CASEY. Sure.

Mr. CASEY. It just stands to reason. If you don't have competition, you have no incentive, no pressure to keep your rates at an affordable level. I do not understand why anyone, in the midst of this debate, is against choice and competition. Both are the central pillars of why we need a public option. What do we do for our health care system? I don't understand the logic. One point we should make, and we address it in the bill--we will not spend a lot of time on it--we should all remember, you look around, we have 100 Senators. Everyone in the Senate, and all of our families, everybody in the House, and then you add other millions of Federal employees, we have a pretty good deal because we have a system where, as I look at some of the features of the public option, we have a pooled purchasing power. If you have millions of Federal employees and their families who are in the same pool, that brings costs down. We are trying to get more and more Americans the same opportunities we have, to be in a pool that big and to keep costs down. For the life of me I cannot understand why someone would not like that, especially people who benefit from it and their families who benefit from what the Senate gets. I have been blessed to have that kind of coverage because I happen to be in the Senate. But every seat here, and then add millions more Federal employees, gets this opportunity because we are in a large purchasing pool. I don't know why a small business owner should not get the same opportunity, a business owner paying through the nose. I know Senator Brown has seen this in the State of Ohio. You have heard from small business owners, time and again, haven't you, about what they are paying every day? What we are saying is, if it works for and if it is good enough for Federal employees to get the lower cost/ benefit of a large and open purchasing pool, why isn't it good enough for the rest of America? I say it is not only good enough for them, but we should make sure they have the same opportunities as small business owners or as part of a family. That is one of the reasons the public option makes lots of sense.

Mr. CASEY. I wish to, first, thank Senator Brown for keeping us organized and focused on this issue. When we went through the work of our committee this summer--some 60 hours of hearings and many hours prior to that walking through the bill--there came a point in time when we realized that if we were going to be strong supporters--and we were and still are--of the public option, we needed to define it, we needed to make it readable and understandable to people, and also we needed to fully articulate what it means to have a public option. A number of people went to work on that--and the two principals of that are with us tonight: Senator Brown and Senator Whitehouse-- spending hours and hours trying to get this right. Contrary to what we have seen in some of the debates and some of the coverage of this issue, this is not very mysterious and it is not theoretical. If you look at the bill--and I will get to sections of the bill in a second-- this is meant to be a choice for people. It is voluntary. It is the first word of the section--and I will go through that in a moment. What we did today, when we sent the letter to the majority leader that Senator Brown referred to, we outlined very succinctly what this is all about. Let me read two or three sentences from the letter we sent today. In the second paragraph, we say: Without a not-for-profit public insurance alternative that competes with these insurers based upon premium rates and quality, insurers will have free rein to increase insurance premiums and drive up the cost of Federal subsidies tied to those premiums. In other words, unless we have some competition, the insurance companies have free rein to keep jacking up prices. That is what we are living through right now. That is what virtually every American has a concern about. We have a concern about cost. If we don't have competition for insurance companies, they will have that free rein to keep driving up cost. What is wrong with competition? I thought that was the American way. But I think some people have lost their way in part of this debate. Competition and choice, that is what this public option is all about. Later in the letter we say this: It is possible to create a public health insurance option that is modeled after private insurance--rates are negotiated and providers are not required to participate in the plan. Very simple. Part of this legislation has features to it that are very similar to Medicare--a public insurance program that has worked real well for generations of Americans. But it will also have some of the requirements that insurance companies have to live by. Let me go through a couple of those. First of all, a public option, in terms of the process starting, would have to get government funding to start. In the way of resources, the government would pay for the first 3 months of claims as a way to capitalize it initially, but then it has to pay back any kind of capitalization over a 10-year time period. What we are talking about is a program, State by State, that would be self-sufficient. It is very important for people to understand that. This would be self-sufficient. Senator Whitehouse talked about this a moment ago, and it needs repetition and reiteration. It would follow the same rules as private plans by defining benefits, by protecting consumers--we hope any entity would do that--finally, by setting premiums that are fair based upon local costs. So this isn't some theory. This isn't some idea we don't know how it will work. We know exactly, and the American people know exactly, how this will work because we understand what it is like to deal with a system where the insurance companies have virtually unlimited power to deny you coverage if you have a preexisting condition, for example. The bill also makes that illegal under the bill we passed in the HELP Committee this summer. But also, insurance companies right now have free rein to jack up their prices. I know there are some State-by-State limitations on that, but mostly free rein exists to do whatever they want. Without a public option, that is what we will have going forward. So if you like costs going up, then you should be against our proposal because costs going up is what we are going to have more and more of if we don't have a public option. One of the important features is that there be State advisory councils--councils set up in each State, made up of providers and consumers to recommend strategies for quality improvement. So this isn't going to be some Washington control here. You are going to have lots and lots of accountability at the State level, and States would share in the savings that result from that kind of accountability. Finally, the notion it is a voluntary program. The providers would have a choice of participating in the public option and there would be no obligation to do so. I point to the bill for this reason. When we were in our States this summer, I remember going back to Pennsylvania and reading about Senator Brown's public forum in the State of Ohio and I was reading about others as well and learning about what was happening in other States. We had our public forums. I spoke to thousands of people over the course of a couple weeks. One of the things I would say to the audience when we had our public forums is, Look, if you walked in here today and you don't support the public option, I ask you to do one thing: Read the bill. Well, the final version of the HELP Committee bill that I am holding right here was 839 pages. I wasn't asking them to read every page, but what I said to them was: If you don't support the public option, just read that section, which is right now 19 pages in the bill. Section 3106, Community Health Insurance Option. In the bill, it is from page 110 to 129. So it is 19 pages in the bill. I said: Look, spend some time taking a look at it. I remember at the one public forum, someone who disagreed with my point of view on the public option went at me verbally and said: You are going to force people to go into these public options. I said: That is not true. Of course, saying it doesn't always end the argument. So, then, I would hold up the bill and I would say: Let's go to section 3106, and I would read from section 3106--I know the camera can't see this--subsection (a). The first two words of this section--other than the heading of it--are ``voluntary nature.'' That is the subheading. So I would read part of that section and say: This is voluntary. Voluntary for any American who goes into the exchange and may decide they want to stay with their own private insurance coverage or may want another--a different--choice. So they can choose this. It was important for people to understand that in a long bill we at least spent 19 pages to get this right. There is a solvency standard in here, for example. This isn't some theory we dreamed up in Washington. We know solvency is important; that a program such as this, in an option such as this, has to meet basic solvency standards. Senator Whitehouse spent some time talking about that and helping Senator Brown and others craft that, along with Senator Udall, who is with us here tonight. It is voluntary. It has to be self-sufficient. There is even an audit section. If you want to get into the detail, there is even an audit section. So that when you have administrators, there is a measure of accountability, in terms of auditing. There are a lot of parts to this that we could go through. The important point, though, is that unless we inject some choice into this and some competition, I am not sure the American people will believe we have done our job. We have said over and over again that among the basic elements of any final health care bill is that we have to have a total commitment to prevention, so we can prevent disease and conditions from leading to bad results for an individual and their family, and prevention will also help us save money at the same time; that any health care bill would have to have choices. If someone wanted to stay with their private coverage, they could do that, but if they wanted other options, we are trying to give them a public option; that any kind of health care reform would have to have quality standards. This will help ensure more quality standards in our system. So I don't believe we can get to where we want to get to in the end unless we have a public option. Let me make two or three more points, and then I wish to have my colleagues rejoin this discussion and also talk about what we are trying to do. There are a lot of discussions--and I know my colleagues saw these in these public forums where we would have someone stand and say: I don't like a government program or I don't like government in our health care, as if we have a system now that is 99 to 1--99 percent private and 1 percent public. I would remind them--and these are some overall numbers, but it is important to remember--that we have a Medicaid Program right now that at last count had over 60 million people in it--60 million Americans. We have a Medicare Program with about 45 million Americans. Then you go to VA health care, and at last count it has 7.8 million Americans. So when you go down the list of programs right now that are government-run programs for health care, you get a large number of Americans--well over 100 million Americans--and their families who benefit from those programs, and you get a commitment from the Federal Government year in and year out to make sure we have that kind of coverage for those who happen to be poor, those who happen to have particular health care challenges, those who happen to be over the age of 65, those who happen to be veterans and who need health care coverage. So we have an American system right now that has a lot of private coverage, but there is a lot of coverage through government programs that even people who oppose some parts of this bill, the last time I checked, don't want to repeal. I haven't found anyone who wants to repeal VA health care or who wants to repeal Medicare. I think we have a system right now that is not working in large measure, but there are some things that are working well. We are trying to improve both ends of this, the public health care end of this and the private health care part of our system.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, first of all, I commend the words of my colleague, Senator Brown, on the issue of health care but in particular the importance of having a public option in our health care plan and the legislation the Senate will take up. Afghanistan Policy I rise today to speak in particular with regard to the debate we are having--just beginning to have, by the way, and need to have a lot more debate about--the U.S. role in Afghanistan, with a special focus in terms of my own remarks today on building the Afghanistan National Army. At the same time, I would also like to recognize the dedication of the Pennsylvania National Guard as well. But first with regard to Afghanistan, the challenge we face in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a grave challenge indeed. Those who might disagree on the way forward or what to do next can agree on that, that it is a grave challenge. In order to get it right, and we must get it right, we need to debate these issues thoroughly. I have been fortunate enough in the 3 years since I have been in the Senate to be a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. As a member of that committee, most recently--the last couple of months, really--I have had several opportunities, as others have on the committee, to examine the military, political, diplomatic, and regional implications of our presence in Afghanistan. Chairman John Kerry has taken a very comprehensive approach, and I applaud his efforts. I also support the administration's deliberate consideration in making this strategic determination. The President is taking the time that I believe is necessary to make the right decision. General McChrystal as well has contributed much to this debate, not only with his report but, more importantly than what he put on paper, the kind of leadership he has provided to our troops on the battlefield and the way he has assessed the threats to our security and to our troops and to the Afghan people and the way he has articulated those threats. Now he has made a recommendation to the President. We hear a lot about what General McChrystal's report said, at least parts of it. We also hear a lot about General McChrystal's recommendation on troops. What we have heard very little about and need to hear more about is the nonmilitary part. What will happen on the nonmilitary aspects of this counterinsurgency strategy? That is vitally important and at the same level of importance as what we do militarily. So we have to get it right militarily and in terms of the other strategy. But one thing we have not heard a lot about is that General McChrystal has actually, in words I am quoting from the New York Times, endorsed the President's deliberate approach. General McChrystal was quoted on October 2 in the New York Times as follows: ``The more deliberation and the more debate we have, the healthier that is going to be'' for the strategy. So for as much attention as has been paid to what his report says, or at least part of what his report says, I think it is also important to listen to his words about taking the time to debate it and taking the time to deliberate it because if all we do in the Senate is point a finger to the White House and say the White House must do this or the President must do this or the administration must do this, we are not fulfilling our responsibilities in the Senate. A number of us have been talking about this challenge, but we have to hear from more voices here and we have to debate this in a very substantive, serious, thorough, and bipartisan way. I will talk more about that in a moment. In that same New York Times story, General McChrystal was also quoted as saying: ``I don't think we have the luxury of going so fast that we make the wrong decision.'' So I think it is important to highlight what General McChrystal has said about the approach we take, the approach President Obama is taking, spending a number of weeks looking at this, focusing on the strategy before the resources. A lot of people in this town want to just talk about troop levels only and resources only instead of getting a sense of where we should be strategically first and then getting to resources. We should consider the ideas set forth in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by the following Senators: McCain, Graham, and Lieberman--all respected voices on national security and foreign policy. This is not going to be the strategy going forward, the solution to a difficult problem; this is not going to be a Democratic solution and it is not going to be a Republican solution; this has to be a strategy and a solution that comes from both parties. Also, I should say that only by working together can we develop the best strategy, and to literally focus on strategy before the question of resources. We cannot simply use sound bites to communicate the complexities of this conflict or simply reassert talking points from the Iraq war debate. If that is all we are going to do around here, we might as well not have a debate because that will not do it for this debate, especially when we are talking about what is at stake here and especially in this case. Politics must stop at the water's edge. I think we can do that. This body has done it in the past, and we can do it again. Let me say at the outset that our problems in Afghanistan are political in nature and will ultimately require a political solution. This does not mean additional troops may not be needed, but it does indicate to me that our strategy needs to reflect a deeper commitment to supporting the Afghan people in their efforts to focus on at least three principal areas--one, the obvious priority of security. There is a lot to talk about just under that umbrella. The second focus we have to have, as well as the Afghan people, is governance. We cannot govern for them; they have to govern themselves. President Karzai and whoever else has authority in that country to provide services have to demonstrate to us and to the world that they can govern themselves. So first security and then governance and finally development, and that obviously is a joint effort, not just American-Afghan but all of the more than 40 nations that are helping us in Afghan to help communities with water systems and infrastructure and education and so many others--health care included--so many other aspects that involve development or at least quality of life in Afghanistan. Ultimately, our success will come in empowering Afghan institutions to address their own internal security. In some cases, this may mean co-opting certain elements of the Taliban, in other cases taking on the Taliban directly. We are now at a stage where the United States can play a positive role in making sure the political framework for the country is sound. The chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, has helped to focus attention on the critical importance of training the Afghan National Army or the so-called ANA. I applaud Chairman Levin's leadership in this regard and support his call for an acceleration--a rapid acceleration of troop training to the levels of 240,000 Afghan National Army troops by 2012. While there is some disagreement over these training timelines, no one disputes the central importance of getting the Afghan security forces trained well and soon. As this force is prepared to provide security, it will decrease the need for a robust U.S. presence in the country. I applaud the efforts of Major General Formica, head of the U.S. unit charged with training the Afghan troops. While the ANA certainly needs substantial additional assistance, we need to acknowledge the fact that this fighting force did not exist 7 years ago. Due in large part to the extraordinary efforts of coalition forces and people like the general, the ANA can be considered a measured success. Without these remarkable efforts, the Afghan National Army would not be in a position to grow at the pace necessary in the coming months. I should also add that the recent Presidential election in Afghanistan presented a very difficult security challenge, and both the Afghan National Army as well as the police performed pretty well. We could witness some security problems but on a much more limited basis than many would have predicted. So that is a bit of good news in all the bad news we hear about Afghanistan. Challenges do remain, however, and this training process will not be easy. A little more than 40 percent of the population in Afghanistan is of the Pashtun ethnicity, although they are not fully represented in the army at these levels. The officer corps of the Afghan National Army, based on traditions that go back decades, is primarily made up of Tajiks, who represent just over 25 percent of the population. The most substantial fighting in Afghan currently takes place in the Pashtun belt, an area of the country in the south and east along the border with Pakistan. I hope the Afghan National Army can continue to take these important ethnicity concerns into consideration as they grow the force. These are critically important concerns about ethnicity. We have to recognize that and not turn away from it. Second, Afghanistan has a very high illiteracy rate; some estimate as high as 70 percent. This presents considerable complication in troop training as some recruits are not able to read or write orders, understand maps or interpret instructions on how to operate equipment. Our trainers have come up with creative training techniques using pictures, for example, but this is no substitute for basic skills required in a modern army. The third challenge with regard to building up the Afghan National Army and perhaps the most significant is posed by the substantial resources needed to stand up such a force. Army recruits are paid only $100 a month, while there are reports that the Taliban pays as much as $300 a month. Both are small amounts, but when the Taliban is paying three times as much, that presents a challenge that we must confront, if we are serious about this. The Afghan National Army should begin to address the discrepancy. Overall the cost of maintaining this expanded force will be considerable, and it is unlikely that the Afghan Government will be able to shoulder this burden anytime soon. It is a challenge that involves both cost and the reality that the government doesn't have the resources to do all it needs to do in building up the Afghan Army. We need to be honest about that. This will be expensive but nowhere near as expensive as the continued deployment and costs associated with maintaining an international coalition force. I have tried to outline some of the realistic challenges we face in standing up the Afghan Army. Afghan Defense Minister Wardak, whom I met during my trip in August, oversees this effort in Kabul. Minister Wardak has been commended for his leadership of the Afghan armed forces. He believes these ambitious troop increases are challenging but possible. I hope we can aggressively pursue Chairman Levin's plan, no matter what comes of the President's strategy. An expanded and enhanced Afghan Army should be a central part of the equation. In the final analysis, this fight against the Taliban is an Afghan fight. We need to be there to support them, but a stable and peaceful Afghanistan will ultimately depend upon how well the Afghan Government can provide security for its own people. (The further remarks of Mr. Casey are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today we remember our colleague and our friend Senator Ted Kennedy. There are few people alive today whose lives have not been impacted by the work of Senator Kennedy. A brilliant legislator, Senator Kennedy championed bipartisanship and compromise to leave behind an incomparable record. In his 45 plus years in the U.S. Senate, he authored over 2,500 bills and several hundred became law. Today, people with disabilities cannot be discriminated against in the workplace because of Senator Kennedy. Women must be paid the same as men for the same work because of Senator Kennedy. And low- income children have access to health care because of Senator Kennedy. Like his brothers before him, Senator Kennedy challenged young people across America and around the world to devote their lives to something more than just themselves and lead by example. Whether it was championing civil rights legislation in the 1960s, condemning apartheid in South Africa before it became politically popular to do so, promoting the need for early childhood education or advocating for health care, Senator Kennedy led the charge. Senator Hubert Humphrey once said that the moral test of government is how it treats those in the dawn of life, our children, those in the twilight of life, our older citizens, and those in the shadows of life, people with disabilities, the homeless, the dispossessed. Senator Kennedy took up the causes of these Americans as his own. The poor, the powerless and the forgotten lost an ever-faithful protector and their tireless advocate. On a personal note, I recall in early 2007, during my first weeks in the Senate, Senator Kennedy gave me and other freshman Senators floor time to speak about increasing the minimum wage. In early 2009, when I was named to the HELP Committee, Senator Kennedy called to welcome me to the committee and invited me to hold field hearings in Pennsylvania on issues like health care and education. I will never forget his courtesy and the respect he showed to fellow Senators. In closing, I am reminded of the words Senator Kennedy spoke about Mike Mansfield when the majority leader retired: No one in this body personifies more nearly than Mike Mansfield the ideal of the Senate. Wisdom, integrity, compassion, fairness, humanity--these virtues are his daily life. He inspired all of us, Democrat and Republican, by his unequalled example. He could stretch this institution beyond its ordinary ability, as easily as he could shame it for failing to meet its responsibility. The same can be said about Senator Kennedy. We will miss him in this Chamber, but we will never forget the lessons he taught us or the legacy he leaves behind.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, Senator Durbin and I have an amendment, amendment No. 2592, and I ask that it be made pending.

Mr. CASEY. I thank the chairman for his comments, and we will certainly act in accordance with his statement.

Mr. CASEY. I will.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I won't read all of this Associated Press story but will just make note of two statements by two people who loved Adam Hermanson very much. There is a statement in this story about his wife and his mother. His wife said, when reflecting upon what had happened to her husband and the circumstances: He was supposed to come back, and we had a lot of plans. So after serving three tours as a soldier and then going back as a contractor, he would have hoped to have come back to be with his wife, and she says in the story that they had a lot of plans. And then Adam's mother, Patricia Hermanson of Las Vegas, said everyone in her family was struggling to understand how he could survive so many tours of duty and then die suddenly in a seemingly safe place. That is a question all of us should ask and have answered--those who are family members who have lived through this nightmare and those who are Senators trying to do something about it. I know there are many people here in this Chamber who want to do something about this, so I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, I hope someone can tell me whether we can call it up at this time.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, let me conclude with a couple of remarks. The Associated Press published a story written by Kimberly Hefling on September 8, 2009, and I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about an amendment, one we are going to be spending more time on in the next couple hours--amendment No. 2592. I will not call it up at this time, but I will speak about it. First, I am very honored that our assistant majority leader, Senator Durbin, has worked with me and our staffs have worked together on this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Majority Leader Reid, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, and Senator Bill Nelson of Florida be added as cosponsors of amendments Nos. 2591 and 2592, which I filed for consideration during the debate on H.R. 3326, the Defense Appropriations Act.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I 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 ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 2592, which is at the desk and has modifications at the desk.

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CASEY. I rise to speak about an amendment Senator Durbin, the assistant majority leader, and I have worked on, as well as getting support and cosponsorship by the majority leader, Senator Reid, and by Senator Kerry and Senator Nelson of Florida. It has three fundamental goals. The first is to deal with the horrific situation our troops have faced where we have a number of troops who have died in Iraq, not as a result of enemy fire or in combat but in a circumstance in which they should have a reasonable expectation of safety. In the case of one of my constituents, SSG Ryan Maseth, Ryan was from the city of Shaler, PA, out in western Pennsylvania. He was taking a shower in Iraq, in his barracks, and was killed, was electrocuted because of shoddy electrical work. So the first part of this amendment speaks to that fundamental problem we still have today. The second part of the amendment ensures that our brave fighting men and women serving in war zones have clean water. Thirdly, this amendment would establish strict standards for preventing and prosecuting sexual assaults on Army bases. These are all commonsense reforms. I will focus principally in my remarks--I know we have limited time--on the issue of electrocution. As I mentioned, SSG Ryan Maseth died on January 2, 2008. He was electrocuted in his barracks in Iraq. Unfortunately for his family, who have been seeking answers to why he was killed in that way, the nightmare has not ended, nor for a lot of other families. Families from Georgia, Texas, California, Nevada, Oregon, Hawaii, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, all of those States, have been affected by these deaths. It continues into last month. On September 1 of this year, Adam Hermanson, who grew up in San Diego and Las Vegas, served three tours of duty in Iraq with the Air Force and then went back to work for a contractor. He, too, lost his life in a horrific way, by electrocution. His wife Janine is waiting for answers. I spoke to her earlier today. Fundamentally, what this amendment does as it relates to the electrocution problem is attempt to right a wrong by ensuring that the Army reviews the language of the contract at the time of formation to ensure it includes explicit language that clearly requires contractors to immediately correct deficiencies such as improperly grounded equipment or facilities. We are talking about basic electrical work here being done in a way that would protect anyone's safety in a way that they should have a right to expect. So when I think of Ryan and his family and his mother Cheryl Harris and I think of Mr. Hermanson and his family, his wife Janine, we are not just thinking about some far-off concept here, we are talking about a real problem that is not yet corrected and still threatens our fighting men and women. Let me conclude my remarks by saying, in addition to urging my colleagues to support this amendment, which I think is so fundamental it does not require a lot of explanation, our troops ought to be able to take a shower or engage in other activities of daily life in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere around the world with that reasonable expectation of safety. We can't guarantee that right now, unfortunately. This amendment will take a step in that direction. Obviously, the other parts, the other two elements in the amendment are that our troops should have the ability to drink clean water and, finally, that no women serving in the military should ever fear the potential or the threat of sexual assault. All of these parts of this amendment are vitally important. I don't understand why anyone would not support it. I have already submitted for the Record earlier the Associated Press story about the death by electrocution of Adam Hermanson. I wanted to cite two statements, two reflections by Adam's wife and his mother. His wife said, when talking about their plans to move back to Pennsylvania: He was supposed to come back and we had a lot of plans. After three tours of duty in Iraq as a soldier and then another tour as a contractor, they were looking forward to his coming back to the United States and, in this case, coming back to Pennsylvania. They had a lot of plans. Those plans were completely destroyed. His life was ended because of a fundamental problem in our system of how we ground electrical outlets, how we install showers in Iraq and threaten troops in the process. We have to correct it for Adam in his memory and for Ryan and so many others, as well as for those they left behind; in this case, Adam's wife Janine. I will conclude with what his mother Patricia said, as she was reflecting on what happened to Adam. She said everyone in their family was struggling to understand how he could survive four war tours--three as a soldier, one as a contractor--and then die suddenly in a seemingly safe place. We should make sure, by way of this amendment and anything else we can do, that our troops are at least safe when taking a shower or in a barracks or living in a situation where they are away from the battlefield, away from a fire fight, away from the threat of enemy fire. That is the least we can do as legislators. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, hoping we can deal with this amendment in the next hour or so. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. CASEY. I rise tonight, as we continue work on this Defense appropriations bill, to talk about the challenges we face in Afghanistan and Pakistan and will be sharing some thoughts tonight which I know are consistent with a lot of the concerns that have been expressed over the last couple days and weeks and months about the policy going forward and what we confront as a country when it comes to both the strategy going forward with Afghanistan and Pakistan. As we do in any conflict, with any threat, we face the grave question of war and what will happen to our military strategy, what we will ask of our troops, what we will ask of the American people, both in terms of our blood and treasure, as well as what is the strategy going forward. I think when we confront the grave question of war, we have to get it right. I believe the stakes are higher with regard to Afghanistan and Pakistan than they were even in the conflict we waged in Iraq. I believe the stakes are higher for our national security. So we have no choice but to get it right. And when I say ``we,'' I think there is a lot of discussion, debate, and focus on President Obama and his administration. That is appropriate because he is the Commander in Chief. But there is probably not enough discussion about what the Congress is going to do, what this Congress should do or not do and, in this case, what the Senate should do or should not do. I think we would be better off spending our time focusing on a substantive and thorough debate in the Senate rather than just pointing a finger at the President, the administration, and saying: They have to do this or the President must do this. It is important, when we talk about getting this policy right, that the Senate gets it right. If the Senate puts the time in to debate and discuss these critical issues--and there is a lot to do in a rather short amount of time. I believe the President should be given a reasonable amount of time to review this policy. As we know, he set forward a strategy this past spring, in March, our policy with regard to both Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you remember how he articulated the mission, he talked about defeating al-Qaida, disabling and dismantling al-Qaida, and he talked a lot in his remarks about Pakistan, about what would happen with regard to our strategy in Pakistan. But I believe there has not been today in the Senate anything approaching a full and robust and thorough and substantive debate about what we are going to do going forward in Afghanistan or Pakistan. I hope people on both sides of the aisle, when we begin this debate--we have done some of it; we need to do a lot more--that we don't just dust off talking points from the war in Iraq, that we don't just dust off or employ sound bites. There is a time and place to use sound bites and discussions and debates. But if we are going to get this policy right, it is not going to be a Democratic solution or strategy only, and it will not be a Republican solution or strategy only. We have to get it right. That means we have to do a lot better than we did when it came to the debate before and during the war in Iraq, which is still a conflict that is ongoing, even as we draw down troops. We have to have a much better debate in the Senate on Afghanistan and Pakistan than took place here with regard to Iraq. That is an understatement. Sound bites will not do it. Political rhetoric and positioning will not do it because that is not a full debate. In short, what we have to do--the administration has to do it, but we have to do it as well--in the Senate is get the strategy right and debate the strategy before we have a long debate about resources. That is critically important. I know there are a lot of people in Washington who want to focus on one or two issues and make it simple--you are either for or against this or that. We have a long way to go. We have not had a debate about strategy. We have had a lot of discussion and coverage of resources, be they troops or other resources, military or nonmilitary. We have not had a discussion about the strategy. We have to do that first--strategy before resources. I had the opportunity, as many of our colleagues did in the summer, in August, to go to both Afghanistan and Pakistan for a limited period. But even in a short amount of time, one can learn a lot--2 days in Afghanistan, 1 day in Pakistan. One of the highlights of my visit to Afghanistan, after having been there in May of 2008, was the briefing from General McChrystal, a tremendous and thorough overview of what is happening on the ground, the threat to our national security as he sees it, also a review not only of the military strategy and the military challenges but the nonmilitary as well. Sitting at the same table with General McChrystal were distinguished Americans who are serving us in nonmilitary capacities--the Department of State, the USAID, the Department of Agriculture, all kinds of help from various Federal Government agencies that involve the other part of counterinsurgency, not only the military campaign. Obviously, we have to do more than that. General McChrystal, like many of his predecessors, is doing everything he can to get this right. I, like others, have reviewed his classified report. We have heard him give a summary of the strategy. It is very important that we weigh those considerations and weigh that assessment seriously going forward. General McChrystal's report is one of the things we have to weigh. We have to weigh a lot of other things as well. We have to listen to experts within our government and outside, experts within the administration, experts in the Congress. The Senate is made up of so many Senators who have long records on foreign policy as well as national security and making sure we get this right. Some are Democrats, some are Republicans, and some are Independents. I will draw upon, as we all should, that experience. I will talk more about that in a moment. One thing stressed by General McChrystal--and it has been stressed by President Obama and the administration and should be stressed by us--is this policy, this strategy going forward in Afghanistan has to involve a couple of basic elements. It obviously has to involve and be focused on security. That is essential, obviously. But in addition to security and the military challenge, we also have to be concerned about governance. And we are concerned about the results of the election. We are concerned about whether President Karzai is doing what he needs to do to govern his country, to have a strong judiciary, to deliver services to his people, to make sure the people of Afghanistan have confidence in his leadership. So we have to be concerned about security and governance but also, thirdly, development, what is going to happen on the ground. A lot of people working as part of provisional reconstruction terms, so-called PRTs, are doing great work on the ground. It is not in the newspaper very often. It is not heralded like a battle is or like a controversy might be, but that is part of building up communities throughout the country in Afghanistan so people can take control of their own lives, take control of their own communities, and take control of their own security and their own future. We also had a chance to talk at length about what is happening in Pakistan and the threats that come across the border from Pakistan into Afghanistan, threats that involve al-Qaida or other extremist or insurgent groups that have some loose confederation with or connection to al-Qaida and threaten our national security, threaten the security of the Afghan people, and even threaten the security of the Pakistani Government. These are very difficult challenges we face. They do involve our national security. We have to get it right with regard to what we do in Afghanistan as well as in Pakistan. I mentioned before there were a number of Senators in both parties who have been trying to begin and amplify the debate. I happen to be a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Our chairman, Senator Kerry, has had a number of hearings on various aspects of this policy, not only going back the last 2 or 3 weeks but going back months. That informs this debate. Chairman Kerry has shown great leadership on these issues as well as broader national security issues. Chairman Levin gave a speech recently that laid out a thoughtful approach. He talked about building up the Afghan Army and the National Police prior to a serious consideration of additional troops. He wants to accelerate, as we all do, the building up of the Army and Police in Afghanistan and maybe in a much shorter timeframe. That is critically important. We have to spend a lot more time talking about and debating and informing ourselves about how best to accelerate the training of the Afghan Army and Police. Chairman Levin, as well, has shown, through his leadership of the Armed Services Committee, how important these issues are. On the other side of the aisle, I read a Wall Street Journal piece recently by John McCain, ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Senator Lieberman. We have to consider those points of view, not just in that op-ed but in other discussions and debates on the Senate floor. As I said before, there will not be one party that is going to solve this. There is not going to be one party to implement a counterinsurgency strategy because when it comes to war and when it comes to the nonmilitary challenges we have that are connected to a war or a campaign, there is not a Democratic or Republican way to fight a war. There is only an American way. We need an American solution. We need a kind of consensus that we may not need on some other issues, but on this one, to get it right, we are going to need both parties. And we will need the support of the American people to get it right. Finally, let me say one more word about why we are doing this, why we should have a thorough debate going forward, why it is important we spend a lot of hours here, not just on the floor of the Senate but in hearings and discussions and briefings with various experts who come before us, and to thoroughly question and ask the tough questions of the administration. I was glad we voted today on a list of administration officials we want to come before the Senate after the President makes fundamental determinations about this policy. Once he has made a decision, then we should have a series of hearings where we can cross-examine not only General McChrystal and the underpinnings of his policy but so many others in the administration, a very strong administration, I would argue, on foreign policy and national security. I will not go through all the names tonight that would give evidence to that. Finally, if we are going to get this right for the fighting men and women we send out on the battlefield, if we are going to get this right for taxpayers who will be financing this effort, whether it is military or nonmilitary, we do have to get it right. One thing we have to bear in mind is, when we send troops out to fight a battle, we have to make sure the policy that undergirds their fight, that the strategy that leads to a discussion about what the resources are to give them all the resources they need to fight a battle, whether it is very wide or very narrow in focus, whatever it is, we have to make sure what we do here is worthy of their sacrifice; that what we do in the Senate on strategy or policy is worthy of what we are asking them to do on the battlefield. We haven't done that yet. We are a long way from doing it. I hope in the next couple of weeks, even as the President is asking tough questions and making determinations about policy, that we do our job in the Senate to ask those tough questions, to have that important debate, and make sure it is substantive and not political; make sure it is about strategy and not just the politics or the sound bites of the moment. To be worthy of their valor, those fighting men and women, and to be worthy of their sacrifice, we have to do our job in the Senate. That has not happened yet. We have to make sure we do that in short order. I suggest the absence of a quorum.